Gender Discussion #40

[NeverEnough]

Hi, I’ve been lurking for a while!
Has anyone watched ‘Good Luck to You, Leo Grande’?
I get that it was all about showing a real middle aged woman with flaws discovering her sexuality but the fact it was with a young male sex worker just gave me the ick! There was so much about sex workers ‘helping people’, like an 82 year old woman or a disabled person. Can you imagine if it was roles reversed and it was a beautiful young woman with a middle aged man? It just seems just as bad (in my opinion)

Welcome to tattle.

It’s beyond my comprehension that some online liberals are starting to suggest that sex work is some sort of viable career option. Every sex worker I have dealt with, almost without exception, has been a hopeless addict who could only provide ”help” to anyone if your goal was to find the quickest way to cook up some crack or inject heroin. A sex worker would frankly tell you that you were the most sexually potent man, with the biggest Willy in the world, if you paid them enough. I despair sometimes.

 

[Falkor]

I'm not that optimistic, Ash Regan resigned her ministerial post over the issue so was clear from the outset. Kate Forbes was on Mat Leave when the bill went through, but would clearly have opposed it.

Humza Yousef is just continuity Sturgeon, so if he gets in he will pursue the bill and not much else.

I worry that Kate Forbes and Ash Regan will split the vote of the sensible and Humza gets in. He's been rubbish in a series of ministerial posts, hope Kate and Ash can cut a deal so that it is only 2 candidates.

It's interesting that Keith Brown, the Deputy Leader, isn't stepping down, which blocks Kate and Ash from hammering out a deal between them to fill both posts in the way that Salmond and Sturgeon did. It's a preference vote, so if that was presented to the party Humza would have to get over 50% of the vote in the first round to win and I couldn't see that happening if there was an option of 1/2 for Kate and Ash.

 

[Glortard]

I'm not that optimistic, Ash Regan resigned her ministerial post over the issue so was clear from the outset. Kate Forbes was on Mat Leave when the bill went through, but would clearly have opposed it.

Humza Yousef is just continuity Sturgeon, so if he gets in he will pursue the bill and not much else.

I worry that Kate Forbes and Ash Regan will split the vote of the sensible and Humza gets in. He's been rubbish in a series of ministerial posts, hope Kate and Ash can cut a deal so that it is only 2 candidates.

Kate Forbes could have voted on this issue remotely and indeed the vote that to block people charged with sex offenses being allowed to self ID was tied until the presiding officer stepped in to push it over the line. Had she voted this would have been defeated so I question what she is saying just now with her lack of actions beforehand. If she was strongly against it like Ash Regan she would have voted.

Incidentally I emailed Ash after her speech to congratulate her on standing up for woman in December and she took the time to reply.

 

[Tui]

Sicko. Most nurses are wearing scrubs these days. He’s deliberately chosen the dress.

What a weirdo. You hardly ever see nurses wearing that uniform, although I suppose he has a cock and balls to disguise.

 

[exhausted_mother]

How will men competing against men empower women? More joined up thinking please.

It keeps the women’s events for women, and ensures it’s a fairer competition. Living life however you want while acknowledging that you are not a biological woman and therefore have no right to compete against them is respectful.

 

[Jasminexx02]

What strikes me about Brianna is how much ‘she’ (not to disrespect the dead or our gender) just looks like a normal girl? Baggy jumper, no makeup, none of this TIM nonsense. I couldn’t tell that wasn’t a biological woman at first glance and I think that’s the first time ever in five or so years iof this trans hysteria

(Brianna’s death is horrific and so sad, but just to say, that photo was not Brianna with no makeup. They used to be quite popular on tiktok a couple years back doing makeup before school, they looked very different without makeup, not that it really matters. I still don’t think you could necessarily tell they were trans even without makeup though, but maybe it was more obvious on top of voice, height, body structure etc

 

[ElektraWintour]

I love theatre but having to read news announcements like this is painful.

 

[Limey]

Kate Forbes could have voted on this issue remotely and indeed the vote that to block people charged with sex offenses being allowed to self ID was tied until the presiding officer stepped in to push it over the line. Had she voted this would have been defeated so I question what she is saying just now with her lack of actions beforehand. If she was strongly against it like Ash Regan she would have voted.

Incidentally I emailed Ash after her speech to congratulate her on standing up for woman in December and she took the time to reply.

I was at University with Ash many moons ago, and she was a really decent person.

 

[Kas01980]

I love theatre but having to read news announcements like this is painful.

I saw something equally ridiculous earlier on. All Roald Dahls books are now being changed by the publisher so that words such as "fat", "crazy" and "ugly" are being completely removed from all his books.

But the best one is the Oompa-Loompas in Charlie and the Chocolate Factory; they're now gender neutral

The world has gone absolutely mad

 

[HoGi]

I saw something equally ridiculous earlier on. All Rolf Dahls books are now being changed by the publisher so that words such as "fat", "crazy" and "ugly" are being completely removed from all his books.

But the best one is the Oompa-Loompas in Charlie and the Chocolate Factory are now gender neutral

The world has gone absolutely mad

We were talking about this at work today. It's ridiculous. They have also added a line to The Witches when it says they wear wigs to cover their bald heads, that women might wear wigs for any number of reasons

Also Ms Trunchball is no longer a "formidable female" she's a "formidable woman". At least it isn't formidable person but we couldn't possibly keep female as we know in 2023 adult human female ≠ woman

 

[Tui]

Look ladies, it’s Jeffrey Marsh enjoying the countryside, it’s accessible to trans people, sorry “gods” after all what a bleeping despicable misogynistic impersonation of a female (he is wearing stilletoes to balance on a rock, watched on by real women wearing trainers)

 

[weeweegie]

View attachment 1974973
Look ladies, it’s Jeffrey Marsh enjoying the countryside, it’s accessible to trans people, sorry “gods” after all what a bleeping despicable misogynistic impersonation of a female (he is wearing stilletoes to balance on a rock, watched on by real women wearing trainers)

Why is he with that child more to the point

 

[klarakluckbag]

I love theatre but having to read news announcements like this is painful.

"She/they"....er, what? Am I the only one who is completely befuddled by this? Female pronouns but only sometimes?

 

[Kas01980]

We were talking about this at work today. It's ridiculous. They have also added a line to The Witches when it says they wear wigs to cover their bald heads, that women might wear wigs for any number of reasons

Also Ms Trunchball is no longer a "formidable female" she's a "formidable woman". At least it isn't formidable person but we couldn't possibly keep female as we know in 2023 adult human female ≠ woman

It's absolute madness. I don't know where people get the time to think this stuff up, and more worryingly, how many people are jumping on the bandwagon. It's scary and it's getting really out of control. I really wish I had nothing more serious to worry about !!

I am a long way off having the knowledge some of you have on this thread and the depths this goes to, but just in the last couple of days since discovering this thread I'm beginning to understand it all to a new deeper level. And I've still got a LONG way to go, I've literally only scratched the surface so far.

I feel sorry for kids growing up and having any understanding of it all. I'll never forget a couple of years ago when Piers Morgan was still on GMB...there was a list of 78 recognised "things" kids could identify as...being taught in Primary Schools. I've never forgotten that. How can children understand it? Or is it being ingrained into them from a very early age and it's just normal for them?

 

[wafflesnwings]

It's absolute madness. I don't know where people get the time to think this stuff up, and more worryingly, how many people are jumping on the bandwagon. It's scary and it's getting really out of control. I really wish I had nothing more serious to worry about !!

I am a long way off having the knowledge some of you have on this thread and the depths this goes to, but just in the last couple of days since discovering this thread I'm beginning to understand it all to a new deeper level. And I've still got a LONG way to go, I've literally only scratched the surface so far.

Welcome to the thread and don't worry, this is a super supportive group who help each other learn more, don't judge and are very astute! I learn so much from here all the time.

Re what you said about Roald Dahl, I agree it's a ridiculous move. Where does it end? I worry where this will take us/what precedent it'll set. Who's next? Will they go after Jacqueline Wilson or JRR Tolkien? Rudyard Kipling because of Gunga Din? Charles Dickens? Ernest Hemingway? All of those writers had views/behaviours we'd consider to be problematic and controversial today, but their literature forms a huge part of the English-speaking world. We all saw what happened to Salman Rushdie, it was rightly condemned etc. and for a minute people seemed to care about how many writers are being silenced and/or attacked (JK Rowling is another example example) for their work and their views - but the way sheeple are jumping on the bandwagon about Roald Dahl reeks of hypocrisy. The sense of entitlement to edit a dead author's canon of work is shocking. I overheard Phillip Pullman on Radio 4 say something along the lines of letting Roald Dahl books be printed less if his works offend us, and to read books by other authors (because there are some incredible writers out there). I thought that was a very sensible response

 

[Kas01980]

Welcome to the thread and don't worry, this is a super supportive group who help each other learn more, don't judge and are very astute! I learn so much from here all the time.

Re what you said about Roald Dahl, I agree it's a ridiculous move. Where does it end? I worry where this will take us/what precedent it'll set. Who's next? Will they go after Jacqueline Wilson or JRR Tolkien? Rudyard Kipling because of Gunga Din? Charles Dickens? Ernest Hemingway? All of those writers had views/behaviours we'd consider to be problematic and controversial today, but their literature forms a huge part of the English-speaking world. We all saw what happened to Salman Rushdie, it was rightly condemned etc. and for a minute people seemed to care about how many writers are being silenced and/or attacked (JK Rowling is another example example) for their work and their views - but the way sheeple are jumping on the bandwagon about Roald Dahl reeks of hypocrisy. The sense of entitlement to edit a dead author's canon of work is shocking. I overheard Phillip Pullman on Radio 4 say something along the lines of letting Roald Dahl books be printed less if his works offend us, and to read books by other authors (because there are some incredible writers out there). I thought that was a very sensible response

Thank you, I must admit I feel out of my depth with some of the things that are discussed. But this is a subject I feel strongly about and want to learn more.

Exactly my thoughts...how can literature by these huge widely known authors just be changed because a minority group is offended? Nobody should be able to tampers with works that are part of history? Why can't WE be offended and kick up all sorts of a stink that things are being re-written to pander to that minority?

What annoys me just as much all it's the virtue signalling bandwagon jumpers. Myself and my boss were talking about something the other day (funnily enough it was along the lines of there being one of two things a human is when they are born...male or female) 20 years ago no one would have batted an eyelid...instead, one particular individual piped up and said "you can't say that"...to which I responded simply with "why?" And she couldn't answer me. Just said "because you can't". Absolutely no reasoning behind it, just going along with the brainwashers that seem to be dictating what people think and say. I will NOT keep my opinion to myself and certainly won't be told what to say or think!!

But seriously, it worries me what all of this is going to lead to.

 

[Sea]

Brilliant as ever....

'Stunning & Braveheart' — Bob Moran art

Original artwork painted on 300gsm Saunders Waterford watercolour paper and rendered in Indian ink and watercolours. Size approximately 30cm. All paintings are carefully packaged in a black presentation box and sent recorded delivery. For more information or to arrange a direct payment please

www.bobmoran.co.uk

 

[weeweegie]

If it makes anyone feel better my kid will only be reading the original versions of Roald Dahl’s books. He already loves loads of them. Not to sound too dramatic here, but it feels like a violation of RD to edit his books after his death. It’s chilling. But where do we stop? Some (a lot of) David Walliam’s books are pretty fatphobic as well as other things. I should know, I have read many of them to my son over the last few years. I’ve winced a bit at the language but we talk about it afterwards. I’ll talk about language around fat people and about judging people on appearance. It opens up a conversation. Books reflect the real world, albeit often exaggerated, and the real world is not a sanitised and perfect place where we all use the right words all the time. And it never will be. I cannot understand the thinking behind editing an authors work based on who’s moral standard?
Sorry - not gender related but just

 

[Avenged7Fold]

Jeffrey Marsh makes my blood boil. He’s just an attention seeking twit.
Wiki entry confirms it
Marsh is nonbinary and uses they as a pronoun and "Mx." as a gender neutral honorific.[30] They have also identified at various times as a gay man, queer, genderqueer, and genderfluid.

 

[Vanelope]

bleeping around with Roald Dahl - duck off! These people are insane. In the name of inclusion which actually means indoctrination.

Dahl is not a cuddly children’s writer / have you read his short stories? Vicious. He was also anti semitic and prejudiced. Name me an acclaimed artist who has no feet of clay.

Philip Pullman is only out for himself. I loved his books but he’s disappeared up his own arse - all because (I think) jealousy that his books did not have the impact and give him the wealth of Harry Potter.

Kids aren’t stupid. Let them judge.