Can a woman have a penis?

[1966_and_all_that]

Yes, if she wants. And providing she is happy to have one I'm sure there's many a man willing to oblige

 

[Victorsponge]

Well in my youth I tried to give my penis to as many women as I could

 

[td53]

I think the problem he is facing is that they represent a significant proportion of his party support, particularly among the activist elements.

That is possibly true, but that same element are also deeply *Stop the War* and that hasn't stopped him taking the mainstream position there.

I think there's also a significant proportion of his potential support who leant their votes to Boris to deal with Brexit who literally don't give a fuck about who is or isn't a woman and what to call them.

The idpol wing of his own party is not going to vote Tory. The 'average voter' will if they perceive Starmer is wrapped up thinking about pronouns instead of things which materially impact on lives of the majority.

 

[Lost Seasider]

That is possibly true, but that same element are also deeply *Stop the War* and that hasn't stopped him taking the mainstream position there.

I'm not sure that there is that much cross-over, the trans-lobby have infiltrated large parts of the public sector, who are the core of his support, they're not typically the STW group.

I think there's also a significant proportion of his potential support who leant their votes to Boris to deal with Brexit who literally don't give a fuck about who is or isn't a woman and what to call them.

Well, I suspect anyone who actually is a woman gives a f*** about it, so that's ~50% of the electorate there, and anyone who has a sister, wife, daughter, niece etc should probably give a f*** about it too.

The idpol wing of his own party is not going to vote Tory. The 'average voter' will if they perceive Starmer is wrapped up thinking about pronouns instead of things which materially impact on lives of the majority

Worse still, if instead of worrying about pronouns they perceive that Starmer is prepared to risk women's safety and welfare because he can't work out if women can have cocks, or if men wearing women's clothing really are men or women, then 99% of "average voters" who think about the issue are going to run a mile from him.

 

[td53]

I'm not sure that there is that much cross-over, the trans-lobby have infiltrated large parts of the public sector, who are the core of his support, they're not typically the STW group.




Well, I suspect anyone who actually is a woman gives a f*** about it, so that's ~50% of the electorate there, and anyone who has a sister, wife, daughter, niece etc should probably give a f*** about it too.




Worse still, if instead of worrying about pronouns they perceive that Starmer is prepared to risk women's safety and welfare because he can't work out if women can have cocks, or if men wearing women's clothing really are men or women, then 99% of "average voters" who think about the issue are going to run a mile from him.

Yeah, to some extent I agree they are different.

You misread me on the second point. What I mean is, and I possibly phrased it badly is, the hypothetical and slightly insulting concept of an 'average (once) red wall voter' is not going to see Starmer seeking to be 'right on' with language and gender as a positive thing.

In general, that group are left wing economically but socially conservative. They want to hear him say other things.

And fwiw, yes, I generally agree that the trans rights stuff risks trampling on women's rights which have been hard fought.

 

[Mexboroseasider]

Yeah, to some extent I agree they are different.

You misread me on the second point. What I mean is, and I possibly phrased it badly is, the hypothetical and slightly insulting concept of an 'average (once) red wall voter' is not going to see Starmer seeking to be 'right on' with language and gender as a positive thing.

In general, that group are left wing economically but socially conservative. They want to hear him say other things.

And fwiw, yes, I generally agree that the trans rights stuff risks trampling on women's rights which have been hard fought.

“They want him to say other things”.

I agree. So maybe whenever media interviewers ask daft questions or government minister stir the pot with this sort of stuff the reaction should be:

“Stick your manufactured culture wars bollocks where the sun doesn’t shine. We want to hear the media asking questions and ministers talking about stuff that matters to us”.

 

[Lost Seasider]

“Stick your manufactured culture wars bollocks where the sun doesn’t shine. We want to hear the media asking questions and ministers talking about stuff that matters to us”.

Such as your wife/daughter being raped in hospital because the NHS has decided that a man in women's clothing is really a woman?

 

[Mexboroseasider]

Such as your wife/daughter being raped in hospital because the NHS has decided that a man in women's clothing is really a woman?

That’s right. Because all transgender people are rapists.

Invent a panic that doesn’t exist. And then shout about it. Very loudly. Some of us are old enough to remember when football supporters were all hooligans and a threat to decent society. That’s if politicians with an axe to grind and a career to promote were to be believed anyway.

I was picking up on the point that voters want to talk about other issues that they think are more important to them. My point is that there are two live threads on here at the moment on the same topic. Now I may be wrong but I don’t think either Curryman or Mates are transgender activists. And I doubt if there are many people who are transitioning on the board at all. So the discussion has been started and pursued by old blokes of a certain age and sexual and gender orientation. Who then moan that voters actually want to discuss other things that are more important to them.

So why don’t they? Instead of falling for the agendas of political activists of a certain bent who want to distract from the real issues.

 

[td53]

That’s right. Because all transgender people are rapists.

Invent a panic that doesn’t exist. And then shout about it. Very loudly. Some of us are old enough to remember when football supporters were all hooligans and a threat to decent society. That’s if politicians with an axe to grind and a career to promote were to be believed anyway.

I was picking up on the point that voters want to talk about other issues that they think are more important to them. My point is that there are two live threads on here at the moment on the same topic. Now I may be wrong but I don’t think either Curryman or Mates are transgender activists. And I doubt if there are many people who are transitioning on the board at all. So the discussion has been started and pursued by old blokes of a certain age and sexual and gender orientation. Who then moan that voters actually want to discuss other things that are more important to them.

So why don’t they? Instead of falling for the agendas of political activists of a certain bent who want to distract from the real issues.

There's only three things of importance in the UK according to the politics forum*.

1) Transgender stuff
2) Statues
3) Who was right/wrong about Brexit.

Now, I don't wish to sound callous but using a utiliarian principle

1) a small minority of people are transgender, an even smaller (miniscule) minority of people are at risk from predatory people who are transgender or possibly better termed as 'are using the transgender issue to act in a way that gives them access to women's spaces'. Women are already subject to a devastating amount of sexual violence and I agree that protection of their safe spaces is absolutely right - but I wonder if people who are keen to advocate thus would also be keen to see (for example) legislation that meant all men must stay at home on say, monday, so women can walk the streets unmolested, unraped and unharassed. As it is, the vast majority of violence against women is perpetrated by men who don't wear dresses. What are we doing about that?

2) Statues are inert objects. Who cares either way? They don't do anything.

3) It's happened. Crack on.

What the media should be doing is forcing politicians to develop plans for the key concerns that impact everyone - inequality, heating costs, quality of work available, supply chain issues, long term enviromental planning, the cost of public transport, education funding, energy security etc etc etc etc which often they don't do, because they're interested in the 'gotcha' moment that they can share on social media so we can all make an instant snap judgement on 'the kind of person' the leader is based on a 30 second clip as if that's how democracy should work.


*this isn't strictly accurate - there is actually loads of different threads and good debate, but the post would work less well if I listed them all and acknowledged that....

 

[Mexboroseasider]

There's only three things of importance in the UK according to the politics forum*.

1) Transgender stuff
2) Statues
3) Who was right/wrong about Brexit.

Now, I don't wish to sound callous but using a utiliarian principle

1) a small minority of people are transgender, an even smaller (miniscule) minority of people are at risk from predatory people who are transgender or possibly better termed as 'are using the transgender issue to act in a way that gives them access to women's spaces'. Women are already subject to a devastating amount of sexual violence and I agree that protection of their safe spaces is absolutely right - but I wonder if people who are keen to advocate thus would also be keen to see (for example) legislation that meant all men must stay at home on say, monday, so women can walk the streets unmolested, unraped and unharassed. As it is, the vast majority of violence against women is perpetrated by men who don't wear dresses. What are we doing about that?

2) Statues are inert objects. Who cares either way? They don't do anything.

3) It's happened. Crack on.

What the media should be doing is forcing politicians to develop plans for the key concerns that impact everyone - inequality, heating costs, quality of work available, supply chain issues, long term enviromental planning, the cost of public transport, education funding, energy security etc etc etc etc which often they don't do, because they're interested in the 'gotcha' moment that they can share on social media so we can all make an instant snap judgement on 'the kind of person' the leader is based on a 30 second clip as if that's how democracy should work.


*this isn't strictly accurate - there is actually loads of different threads and good debate, but the post would work less well if I listed them all and acknowledged that....

That’s pretty fair.

Hopefully Lost (and the other suspects) can now move on from this obsession over “women with willies”.

 

[1966_and_all_that]

There's only three things of importance in the UK according to the politics forum*.

1) Transgender stuff
2) Statues
3) Who was right/wrong about Brexit.

Now, I don't wish to sound callous but using a utiliarian principle

1) a small minority of people are transgender, an even smaller (miniscule) minority of people are at risk from predatory people who are transgender or possibly better termed as 'are using the transgender issue to act in a way that gives them access to women's spaces'. Women are already subject to a devastating amount of sexual violence and I agree that protection of their safe spaces is absolutely right - but I wonder if people who are keen to advocate thus would also be keen to see (for example) legislation that meant all men must stay at home on say, monday, so women can walk the streets unmolested, unraped and unharassed. As it is, the vast majority of violence against women is perpetrated by men who don't wear dresses. What are we doing about that?

2) Statues are inert objects. Who cares either way? They don't do anything.

3) It's happened. Crack on.

What the media should be doing is forcing politicians to develop plans for the key concerns that impact everyone - inequality, heating costs, quality of work available, supply chain issues, long term enviromental planning, the cost of public transport, education funding, energy security etc etc etc etc which often they don't do, because they're interested in the 'gotcha' moment that they can share on social media so we can all make an instant snap judgement on 'the kind of person' the leader is based on a 30 second clip as if that's how democracy should work.


*this isn't strictly accurate - there is actually loads of different threads and good debate, but the post would work less well if I listed them all and acknowledged that....

I'm glad you added your rider. There's an awful, bigoted woman in with a chance of becoming the leader of France. That would be terrible. Her opponent isn't much better. Why? Why this overt populism in the world right now? I'll tell you all why. It's because of the banking crisis in 2008/09 and the pandemic. People are seeking refuge in right wing extremism and it's so very wrong.

 

[td53]

The extreme right offer flawed pseudo solutions.

The left all too often have offered managerialism and no solutions and encouraged people to be happy with a slightly less brutal form of the right's agenda as 'the best you're going to get' which is essentially because the left has ceded the argument on the economy decades ago. Corbyn's unexpected brief popularity was solely down to the fact he actually offered his own solutions.

The right have engaged with people the left have decided they don't want a lot to do with.

The left think the right run the media, but the right insist the media is infested with marxists.

It's all a shitshow and democracy is lagging way behind in terms of adjusting to a new paradigm of how people engage and communicate.

The political system itself is in need of serious overall. I wouldn't go near politics in this day and age. MPs getting murdered, death plots foiled (e.g. Jack Renshaw) and a total lack of respect for anyone in office and the standard of public debate and discussion is probably at the lowest it's ever been. I've watched old 60s/70s TV shows and been astonished at watching political heavyweights slug it out on primetime television in deep and thoughtful debate. Compared to the way they speak to each other now and indeed, compared to how they are interviewed now, it looks like a flippin' golden age...

 

[Lost Seasider]

That’s right. Because all transgender people are rapists.

Invent a panic that doesn’t exist. And then shout about it. Very loudly. Some of us are old enough to remember when football supporters were all hooligans and a threat to decent society. That’s if politicians with an axe to grind and a career to promote were to be believed anyway.

The ones that have penises, which AFAIK is still the vast majority of them, certainly have the potential to be rapists, and the potential for exploitation of the current confusion by those with nefarious intent should be obvious to all.

That of course is on top of the question of whether children should be taught this stuff, possibly from a very young age, and the potential for serious harms to children with genuine identity/sexuality issues, which appears to be predominantly early teenage girls, including drastic medical interventions that have life-long consequences.

It's worth mentioning that until a couple of years ago the number of genuine diagnosed cases of gender-dysmorphia was tiny.

My 2p on the issue, I think a lot of the trans-activism is an extreme form of misogyny dressed up as gender-dysmorphia, it's not that they think they are women, it's that they hate women and this is a convenient and socially acceptable way of expressing that hatred, hence why those questioning the issue, particularly women, are on the receiving end of exceptionally vile abuse.

I was picking up on the point that voters want to talk about other issues that they think are more important to them. My point is that there are two live threads on here at the moment on the same topic. Now I may be wrong but I don’t think either Curryman or Mates are transgender activists. And I doubt if there are many people who are transitioning on the board at all. So the discussion has been started and pursued by old blokes of a certain age and sexual and gender orientation. Who then moan that voters actually want to discuss other things that are more important to them.

So why don’t they? Instead of falling for the agendas of political activists of a certain bent who want to distract from the real issues.

I take it you don't have a young daughter/granddaughter being drip fed this stuff at school, and potentially being put at risk by the seeming inability of authorities to understand what is and is not a woman, or at least their unwillingness to say it, suffice it to say that the parents of such children do consider this an important issue.

Personally, I take your attempt to minimize the issue as an acknowledgement that it's a massive vote loser for the Labour party, and thus I can see why you don't want to talk about it, unfortunately for you, I don't think the issue is going away any time soon.

 

[Mexboroseasider]

The ones that have penises, which AFAIK is still the vast majority of them, certainly have the potential to be rapists, and the potential for exploitation of the current confusion by those with nefarious intent should be obvious to all.

That of course is on top of the question of whether children should be taught this stuff, possibly from a very young age, and the potential for serious harms to children with genuine identity/sexuality issues, which appears to be predominantly early teenage girls, including drastic medical interventions that have life-long consequences.

It's worth mentioning that until a couple of years ago the number of genuine diagnosed cases of gender-dysmorphia was tiny.

My 2p on the issue, I think a lot of the trans-activism is an extreme form of misogyny dressed up as gender-dysmorphia, it's not that they think they are women, it's that they hate women and this is a convenient and socially acceptable way of expressing that hatred, hence why those questioning the issue, particularly women, are on the receiving end of exceptionally vile abuse.




I take it you don't have a young daughter/granddaughter being drip fed this stuff at school, and potentially being put at risk by the seeming inability of authorities to understand what is and is not a woman, or at least their unwillingness to say it, suffice it to say that the parents of such children do consider this an important issue.

Personally, I take your attempt to minimize the issue as an acknowledgement that it's a massive vote loser for the Labour party, and thus I can see why you don't want to talk about it, unfortunately for you, I don't think the issue is going away any time soon.

As already pointed out the vast, vast majority of men who rape women don’t wear dresses. Why aren’t you shouting about that? What are you proposing to address that problem?

And as we’re repeatedly told, transgender issues don’t matter to most voters. They want to talk about stuff that’s important to them, like the cost of living crisis. So why do you continually bang on about it? It’s almost as if you don’t want to engage on real issues.

I’m just grateful the QAnon bollocks has never gained any traction over here (so far at least) or you’d be posting endless nonsense and made up stories about that as well.

 

[Lost Seasider]

As already pointed out the vast, vast majority of men who rape women don’t wear dresses. Why aren’t you shouting about that? What are you proposing to address that problem?

It's part of the issue, although perhaps the most visible one, and to address it is simple, recognize that people with penises are men and are not permitted to use women only facilities regardless of what they say/think they are.

And as we’re repeatedly told, transgender issues don’t matter to most voters. They want to talk about stuff that’s important to them, like the cost of living crisis. So why do you continually bang on about it? It’s almost as if you don’t want to engage on real issues.

Here's the mumsnet forum on women's' rights, why don't you go on there and tell them it doesn't matter to most voters, and that they should concentrate on the real issues.