You agree, then, to the very same point I made immediately above. By 'involvement of others' I was talking about intimate relationships, not using the bog.
Then yes, we are agreed!
You agree, then, to the very same point I made immediately above. By 'involvement of others' I was talking about intimate relationships, not using the bog.
*note how I didn't include them in the 'equality brigade', feminists don't want equality, they just want women to have all the power, but that's a debate for a different thread
There are some very unique people out there!
You commence a relationship with somebody who, so far as you can tell, is of the appropriate sex. At some point later, you discover the individual is transgender. The person you have been having sexual relations with is, in fact biologically the 'wrong' sex. Is this okay? To be very blunt indeed, do you have the right to know if the person you're bonking used to be a bloke? It certainly wouldn't be to my taste. Or is it just tough luck?! Where do you draw lines as to what is acceptable, or where boundaries should lie?
How long I wonder before the first well publicised case of somebody who decides they can no longer 'identify' as human, and demands appropriate treatment to become whatever sort of beast/being/Star Wars character they have decided they really are on the inside?
I used to know an Otherkin a few years ago and I imagine as it becomes more common this idea and Species dysphoria will eventually be accepted as legal and normal, maybe America first then here later.
If changing sex especially on a day to day basis as some do is deemed normal and legal then the similar step of identifying as an animal real or imagined cannot surely be denied.
I used to know an Otherkin a few years ago and I imagine as it becomes more common this idea and Species dysphoria will eventually be accepted as legal and normal, maybe America first then here later.
If changing sex especially on a day to day basis as some do is deemed normal and legal then the similar step of identifying as an animal real or imagined cannot surely be denied.
If changing sex especially on a day to day basis as some do is deemed normal and legal then the similar step of identifying as an animal real or imagined cannot surely be denied.
Personally I don't care as long as they work and pay tax. We have more important issues to worry about than Otherkin (though I'll admit that's the first time I've had that - rather strange - word).
*note how I didn't include them in the 'equality brigade', feminists don't want equality, they just want women to have all the power, but that's a debate for a different thread
That's going a bit far.
Nobody with a shred of credibility can deny that some feminists are just man-hating lesbians who see nearly 50% of the population as "walking abortions", but such vicious misandrists do not represent all feminists.
Some feminists are reasonable people. Unfortunately they all too often find their voices drowned out by the shrill hateful lunatics and clickbaity attention-seekers in the feminist movement.
Just wondering why we have been hearing about it at this level only fairly recently. Never seemed to be discussed at one time
Some feminists are reasonable people. Unfortunately they all too often find their voices drowned out by the shrill hateful lunatics and clickbaity attention-seekers in the feminist movement.
How about this; there are two sexes, there are no set genders. Does that please the 'equality brigade', the feminists*, LGBT people, and the people getting worked up over other people's sexuality?
*note how I didn't include them in the 'equality brigade', feminists don't want equality, they just want women to have all the power, but that's a debate for a different thread
Gender is a social construct of categorising people. Species is not, and neither is the distinction between real people and fictional characters.
Well it can. The line will be drawn at bestiality.
Just wondering why we have been hearing about it at this level only fairly recently. Never seemed to be discussed at one time
I'm an egalitarian. I want equal rights for men and women in all respects - and that also includes areas where men are left behind.
Indeed. Regarding areas where men are left behind, I'd suggest male rape and domestic violnce victims.
I don't have high hopes though. Every campaign against domestic violence that I've ever seen is firmly of the opinion that it is men who hit women, and that's it.
I don't agree that it is, but you would expect most advertising to deal with male on female domestic violence because 85% of domestic violence is male on female. Less than 5% of domestic violence is female on male, with about 5% being male on male and about 5% female on female.
If 90% of the victims of domestic violence are women, you're going to target your advertising towards this fact.
That doesn't dismiss domestic violence where men are the victims, and the fact that men are significantly less likely to report domestic violence and sexual abuse (even compared to the very low levels of reporting from women) is something that needs urgently addressing.
But when the aggressor is male 90% of the time, arguing that advertising should be "equal" is wrong.
I don't agree that it is, but you would expect most advertising to deal with male on female domestic violence because 85% of domestic violence is male on female. Less than 5% of domestic violence is female on male, with about 5% being male on male and about 5% female on female.
If 90% of the victims of domestic violence are women, you're going to target your advertising towards this fact.
That doesn't dismiss domestic violence where men are the victims, and the fact that men are significantly less likely to report domestic violence and sexual abuse (even compared to the very low levels of reporting from women) is something that needs urgently addressing.
But when the aggressor is male 90% of the time, arguing that advertising should be "equal" is wrong.
When I go to the Olympic parade in Manchester wearing my Union Flag skirt, what category will that put me in?
(It won't be Category C, m'lud, I'll have my Union Flag undies on below, of course. One has standards to maintain.)
Was it "Not The Nine-O'Clock News" which informed us all it was illegal to wear a loud shirt in a built up area?You'll be done for indecent exposure, as both Union Flag garments will be deemed outrageously racist and confiscated instantly![]()
Was it "Not The Nine-O'Clock News" which informed us all it was illegal to wear a loud shirt in a built up area?
Is this your hedgehog sir ?
When I go to the Olympic parade in Manchester wearing my Union Flag skirt, what category will that put me in?
I object to beastiality on the same grounds as child abuse - informed consent. If your partner can't legally consent, it's statutory rape, end of. .
Indeed, that's why I find it silly when people say that bestiality and whatnot will be legalized next because homosexual marriage has been legalized. The two issues are really different, one is morally right and the other isn't.
When I go to the Olympic parade in Manchester wearing my Union Flag skirt, what category will that put me in?
(It won't be Category C, m'lud, I'll have my Union Flag undies on below, of course. One has standards to maintain.)