Ginger men who now identifies as a woman.

[JohnD]

If you want to participate in an intelligent debate about complex issues, you need to get your attention deficiency syndrome sorted, to be able to absorb more than a few words or a couple of lines of text.

If you want to contribute to a thread that is headed as being about men who identify as women, you need to try and do that.

Cutting down on your verbosity would also be an improvement.

 

[Ivor Windybottom]

If you can't dazzle with brilliance then baffle with bull----.

 

[King Billy]

If you want to contribute to a thread that is headed as being about men who identify as women, you need to try and do that.

Cutting down on your verbosity would also be an improvement.

My question was not verbose, and neither need your answer be.
Yet you avoided it, and resorted to more diversionry tactics.

Do you believe that intersex babies and people exist?

JohnD again reinforcing his refusal to accept that intersex babies are born

JohnD refuses to accept that intersex babies occur.

Poor Billy can't stop lying.

Do you accept that intersex babies are born and intersex people exist?

Prove that I'm lying.

You could easily prove that I'm lying by accepting that intersex babies and people exist. The UN estimates that there are over 1,000,000 in the UK.
Several medical organisations estimate that over 3,000 'normalising' (Intersex Genital Mutilation - IGM*) procedures on intersex babies are carried out each year.
But you reject Medical Science in favour of old-fashioned, religiously inspired doctrine.

*Unnecessary and involuntary (i.e. without consent) Genital Mutilations on Intersex babies.

 

[noseall]

My question was not verbose, and neither need your answer be.
Yet you avoided it, and resorted to more diversionry tactics.

Do you believe that intersex babies and people exist?




You could easily prove that I'm lying by accepting that intersex babies and people exist. The UN estimates that there are over 1,000,000 in the UK.
Several medical organisations estimate that over 3,000 'normalising' (Intersex Genital Mutilation - IGM*) procedures on intersex babies are carried out each year.
But you reject Medical Science in favour of old-fashioned, religiously inspired doctrine.

*Unnecessary and involuntary (i.e. without consent) Genital Mutilations on Intersex babies.

Why do you chose focus the thread on (intersex) irrelevance?

For the gazillionth time - people object to a man putting on a frock and some lippy and thinking he has the right to enter female only spaces.

 

[King Billy]

Why do you chose focus the thread on (intersex) irrelevance?

For the gazillionth time - people object to a man putting on a frock and some lippy and thinking he has the right to enter female only spaces.

Very simply, because while people refuse to accept the existence and prevalence of intersex babies and people, they can continue to conflate genuine transgenders with pervert criminals, as you have just done.
Once they accept that existence and prevalence of intersex babies and people, their religiously inspired denial of genuine transgenders simply disintegrates. They are obliged to recognise the existence of transgenders, and again their denial simply disintegrates.
So they continue to deny the existence and prevalence of intersex babies and people, so they can continue to deny the existence of transgenders, and the fall back on the conflation with: "a man putting on a frock and some lippy".

 

[noseall]

Very simply, because while people refuse to accept the existence and prevalence of intersex babies

I have not seen that on this thread, only complaints that it is irrelevant to their argument, i.e....

people object to a man putting on a frock and some lippy and thinking he has the right to enter female only spaces.

Hope this helps.

 

[King Billy]

Just to illustrate the risk of assigning the wrong sex label to babies born intersex, and potentially creating a transgender individual, bearing in mind, that parents are consulted for voluntary procedures. The figures I gave previously, of more than 3,000 annually, for IGM, were for involuntary and unnecessary procedures, i.e. those conducted without consent and without need.

• Best Guess Strategy: Doctors and specialists (like endocrinologists) recommend a sex assignment based on which gender the child is more likely to identify with, or which will make surgery technically easier, aiming for a "best guess" on how the child will develop.
• Parental Choice: Ultimately, the decision of which sex is officially registered rests with the parents, based on medical counsel.
• Changing Practices: The medical community is increasingly moving toward delaying non-essential, cosmetic surgeries until the child is old enough to understand their body and make their own decisions regarding their identity.

So for intersex babies, 'normalising' procedures are based on easiest, or best guess by the clinician and preference by the parents.

 

[King Billy]

I have not seen that on this thread, only complaints that it is irrelevant to their argument, i.e....

I can only assume you haven't been following the thread closely.
Of those persistently conflating transgenders with perverted male voyeurs, only Ivor Windybottom, and transam have begrudgingly accepted that genuine transgenders exist. In transam's case it's treated as a joke. In Ivor's case, he claims to be able to detect transgenders by the size of their hands.

All other participants, that insist on conflating transgenders with perverted male voyeurs, do not accept that intersex babies are born, that more than 1,000,000 intersex people exist in UK (UN estimates).
And some flatly refuse to acknowledge their existence.
Until we can get past that stage, there will continue to be the conflation of transgenders with male perverts.
Transgenders are not criminals, nor perverts. Intersex are biological males or females, or neither, or either.
Transgenders happen to have the incorrect sex assigned at birth.
It's a lifelong problem for them. Just like racism, homophobia, anti-Semitism, ageism, sexism, etc, transphobia is discrimination based on old fashioned, out-of-date, religiously inspired ideology which modern-day Medical Science has disproved. But diehards cling to it to justiy their imagined fears.

Hope this helps.

Not really. It's a strawman argument. No-one disputes that people object to male perverts disguised or camouflaged as women, entering, or attempting to enter, women spaces in order to commit an offence. You're arguing against an argument that no-one has presented.
Not all biological males dressed as women are criminals attempting to enter female spaces. I posit that very few are.
The police have no records of this happening. So is it a genuine concern or an imagined concern to cover their transphobia?
You may have noticed that they have little objection to biological women entering male spaces, and it's rarely mentioned.

Now the women in those spaces will be confronted by females dressed as, and to all intents and appearances, men.

Would people prefer to see this woman enter women spaces?

Ot this man?

Both are transgender.

 

[King Billy]

Just as an afterthought - being intersex (1.7%) is more common than having red (ginger) hair (1-2%). or being a twin (0.5%)

Globally the chances of having red hair are 1-2%. But there are regional differences that rise to as much as 10-13% (Ireland and Scotland).