Search results

I was responding to the CAN-SG statement, which you posted as though it was significant. I'm not interested in discussing what I wrote because, as far as I'm concerned, there isn't anything to discuss, and it would just make me cross again. But since you don't want to either, that's grand (y)...

Of course that's the only part of the article you've bothered to comment on, and of course you take what the CAN-SG say at face value. As to the protest (because it was in bold): this was a primarily peaceful if loud demonstration of the "nothing about us without us" kind. Yes, it seems some...

Yeah, the one bit of hyperbole in my post is the one bit you take seriously and are performatively outraged by. You should post it on TERF Twitter as – look! look! – another example of teh evil trans. Maybe you'll even trend (y) (y)

No, I've been reading, living, thinking about this for over 40 years. I have a entire wall of books on gender stuff – academic, autobiographical, feminist, legal, polemic, all sorts. You're just another Johnny come lately with no real skin in the game, except perhaps the need to argue on the...

a good plan (y)

I'm not attacking your motive. I'm attacking you personally because you don't have an argument. You're just recycling trans-hostile twaddle you read online. For instance... Jesse fucking Singal. ffs :rolleyes::rolleyes: :rolleyes: Yes, well, I was angry. I still am. Try Freddy McConnell's...

You're making a big jump with "harmful" there. The report claims rather that there isn't evidence to justify them – and that's because Cass ruled out all the evidence. It's just academese. That's how academics write. It always reads like drivel if you don't know what they're talking about. But...

Any trans person who expresses an opinion is a de facto "trans activist" and can be rightly dismissed as an extremist (y)

nice summary of your own tactics there (y)

some nice concern trolling there (y)

You haven't got a clue what you're talking about. Her "arguments" are entirely flawed. Her main conclusion that "we have no good evidence" (and everything that follows from that) was because she ignored on spurious grounds the mass of evidence (over 100 studies worldwide) that didn't fit her...

If you're referring to the Cass report, that's just a pile of shite from start to finish.

and then there's this...

intermittently

even the G**rdian is asking what's the point of Keir Starmer now

I'm a big Mieville fan. I think all his books are good and well written. Fuck anyone here who says otherwise 🤨