Broadcasters appealing for money

surely the churches in the country have oodles of dosh stashed away
they could donate?

They could sell all that lead and get EDPM roofing...

Paul Ratcliffe

2023-03-24 11:12:16 UTC

surely the churches in the country have oodles of dosh stashed away
they could donate?

They could sell all that lead and get EDPM roofing...

Who buys lead these days and what do they use it for?
Apart from churches who have had theirs nicked of course...

Andy Burns

2023-03-24 12:48:38 UTC

Post by Paul Ratcliffe
Who buys lead these days and what do they use it for?

Somebody must, because I got a good price for my old weathering slate.

MikeS

2023-03-24 13:09:44 UTC

Post by Paul Ratcliffe
Who buys lead these days and what do they use it for?

Somebody must, because I got a good price for my old weathering slate.

You won't find much lead in slate, weathered or not.

Brian Gaff

2023-03-25 12:30:24 UTC

Maybe it was covered in Lead. One must be careful as lead is a bogey main
these days, They made solder worse by removing it, but you can still breathe
toxic fumes from the flux!

Brian
--
--:
This newsgroup posting comes to you directly from...
The Sofa of Brian Gaff...
***@blueyonder.co.uk
Blind user, so no pictures please
Note this Signature is meaningless.!

Post by MikeS

Post by Paul Ratcliffe
Who buys lead these days and what do they use it for?

Somebody must, because I got a good price for my old weathering slate.

You won't find much lead in slate, weathered or not.

Stephen Wolstenholme

2023-03-24 13:59:52 UTC

On Fri, 24 Mar 2023 11:12:16 GMT, Paul Ratcliffe

Post by Paul Ratcliffe

surely the churches in the country have oodles of dosh stashed away
they could donate?

They could sell all that lead and get EDPM roofing...

Who buys lead these days and what do they use it for?
Apart from churches who have had theirs nicked of course...

It must have some value or it wouldn't get nicked.

Paul Ratcliffe

2023-03-24 14:48:11 UTC

Post by Stephen Wolstenholme

On Fri, 24 Mar 2023 13:59:52 +0000, Stephen Wolstenholme

Post by Paul Ratcliffe

surely the churches in the country have oodles of dosh stashed away
they could donate?

They could sell all that lead and get EDPM roofing...

Who buys lead these days and what do they use it for?
Apart from churches who have had theirs nicked of course...

It must have some value or it wouldn't get nicked.

Well, yes...

The pikeys nick it from churches, who sell it to bent
scrap metal dealears, who sell it back to the churches
from where it was nicked.
The pikeys and the bent dealers benefit and the churches
and those who support them obviously don't.

Brian Gaff

2023-03-25 12:28:21 UTC

Well my house has lead flashing near the chimney breast. Brian
--
--:
This newsgroup posting comes to you directly from...
The Sofa of Brian Gaff...
***@blueyonder.co.uk
Blind user, so no pictures please
Note this Signature is meaningless.!

Post by Paul Ratcliffe

surely the churches in the country have oodles of dosh stashed away
they could donate?

They could sell all that lead and get EDPM roofing...

Who buys lead these days and what do they use it for?
Apart from churches who have had theirs nicked of course...

2023-03-24 11:24:40 UTC

Post by Brian Gaff
I was tuning around the medium wave today and noticed Premier, the
Christian station appealing for the general public to donate to keep their
DAB system running. OK I know that they are possibly niche, but surely the
churches in the country have oodles of dosh stashed away they could
donate?
Myself, I find their output to be naive about the world and somewhat
condescending, but each to their own.

I find the whole concept of religion, in the sense of worship,
belief-without-proof, and persecution of sections of the population (women,
gays etc) "naive ... and somewhat condescending" and downright offensive and
illegal. Religions have a great deal to offer as codes for everyone living
together harmoniously, but that's where they should end.

The Sex Discrimination Act should not have had an exemption for religions:
any religion which practices discrimination against women priests or uses
"it's against my religious beliefs" to ban homosexual hotel guests etc has
no place in modern society, and prosecutions should ensue. Social attitudes
change, and religions should keep up with those attitudes. Otherwise they
become irrelevant. You can't foist attitudes from 2000 years ago on 21st
century life.

charles

2023-03-24 11:41:31 UTC

Post by Brian Gaff
I was tuning around the medium wave today and noticed Premier, the
Christian station appealing for the general public to donate to keep
their DAB system running. OK I know that they are possibly niche, but
surely the churches in the country have oodles of dosh stashed away
they could donate? Myself, I find their output to be naive about the
world and somewhat condescending, but each to their own.

I find the whole concept of religion, in the sense of worship,
belief-without-proof, and persecution of sections of the population
(women, gays etc) "naive ... and somewhat condescending" and downright
offensive and illegal. Religions have a great deal to offer as codes for
everyone living together harmoniously, but that's where they should end.
The Sex Discrimination Act should not have had an exemption for
religions: any religion which practices discrimination against women
priests or uses "it's against my religious beliefs" to ban homosexual
hotel guests etc has no place in modern society, and prosecutions should
ensue. Social attitudes change, and religions should keep up with those
attitudes. Otherwise they become irrelevant. You can't foist attitudes
from 2000 years ago on 21st century life.

Thou shalt not commit adutery, thou shalt not steal, thou shalt not kill
and thou shalt not bear false witness are ideas totally alien to the 21st
Century

--
from KT24 in Surrey, England - sent from my RISC OS 4té
"I'd rather die of exhaustion than die of boredom" Thomas Carlyle

Robin

2023-03-24 11:55:43 UTC

Post by charles

Post by Brian Gaff
I was tuning around the medium wave today and noticed Premier, the
Christian station appealing for the general public to donate to keep
their DAB system running. OK I know that they are possibly niche, but
surely the churches in the country have oodles of dosh stashed away
they could donate? Myself, I find their output to be naive about the
world and somewhat condescending, but each to their own.

I find the whole concept of religion, in the sense of worship,
belief-without-proof, and persecution of sections of the population
(women, gays etc) "naive ... and somewhat condescending" and downright
offensive and illegal. Religions have a great deal to offer as codes for
everyone living together harmoniously, but that's where they should end.
The Sex Discrimination Act should not have had an exemption for
religions: any religion which practices discrimination against women
priests or uses "it's against my religious beliefs" to ban homosexual
hotel guests etc has no place in modern society, and prosecutions should
ensue. Social attitudes change, and religions should keep up with those
attitudes. Otherwise they become irrelevant. You can't foist attitudes
from 2000 years ago on 21st century life.

Thou shalt not commit adutery, thou shalt not steal, thou shalt not kill
and thou shalt not bear false witness are ideas totally alien to the 21st
Century

But at least intolerance of dissenting views appears to be alive and well.

--
Robin
reply-to address is (intended to be) valid

Max Demian

2023-03-24 12:09:53 UTC

Post by Robin

Post by charles

Post by Brian Gaff
I was tuning around the medium wave today and noticed Premier, the
Christian station appealing for the general public to donate to keep
their DAB system running. OK I know that they are possibly niche, but
surely the churches in the country have oodles of dosh stashed away
they could donate? Myself, I find their output to be naive about the
world and somewhat condescending, but each to their own.

I find the whole concept of religion, in the sense of worship,
belief-without-proof, and persecution of sections of the population
(women, gays etc) "naive ... and somewhat condescending" and downright
offensive and illegal. Religions have a great deal to offer as codes for
everyone living together harmoniously, but that's where they should end.
The Sex Discrimination Act should not have had an exemption for
religions: any religion which practices discrimination against women
priests or uses "it's against my religious beliefs" to ban homosexual
hotel guests etc has no place in modern society, and prosecutions should
ensue. Social attitudes change, and religions should keep up with those
attitudes. Otherwise they become irrelevant. You can't foist attitudes
from 2000 years ago on 21st century life.

Thou shalt not commit adutery, thou shalt not steal, thou shalt not kill
and thou shalt not bear false witness are ideas totally alien to the 21st
Century

But at least intolerance of dissenting views appears to be alive and well.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance

--
Max Demian

Tweed

2023-03-24 13:55:41 UTC

Post by charles

Post by Brian Gaff
I was tuning around the medium wave today and noticed Premier, the
Christian station appealing for the general public to donate to keep
their DAB system running. OK I know that they are possibly niche, but
surely the churches in the country have oodles of dosh stashed away
they could donate? Myself, I find their output to be naive about the
world and somewhat condescending, but each to their own.

I find the whole concept of religion, in the sense of worship,
belief-without-proof, and persecution of sections of the population
(women, gays etc) "naive ... and somewhat condescending" and downright
offensive and illegal. Religions have a great deal to offer as codes for
everyone living together harmoniously, but that's where they should end.
The Sex Discrimination Act should not have had an exemption for
religions: any religion which practices discrimination against women
priests or uses "it's against my religious beliefs" to ban homosexual
hotel guests etc has no place in modern society, and prosecutions should
ensue. Social attitudes change, and religions should keep up with those
attitudes. Otherwise they become irrelevant. You can't foist attitudes
from 2000 years ago on 21st century life.

Thou shalt not commit adutery, thou shalt not steal, thou shalt not kill
and thou shalt not bear false witness are ideas totally alien to the 21st
Century

That’s not entirely true. A lot of people, including the young, still stand
by those values. I do and so do my offspring, and none of us are the
slightest bit religious. We don’t all take our standpoint from Boris.

Max Demian

2023-03-24 12:07:30 UTC

Post by Brian Gaff
I was tuning around the medium wave today and noticed Premier, the
Christian station appealing for the general public to donate to keep
their DAB system running. OK I know that they are possibly niche, but
surely the churches in the country have oodles of dosh stashed away
they could donate?
Myself, I find their output to be naive about the world and somewhat
condescending, but each to their own.

I find the whole concept of religion, in the sense of worship,
belief-without-proof, and persecution of sections of the population
(women, gays etc) "naive ... and somewhat condescending" and downright
offensive and illegal. Religions have a great deal to offer as codes for
everyone living together harmoniously, but that's where they should end.
The Sex Discrimination Act should not have had an exemption for
religions: any religion which practices discrimination against women
priests or uses "it's against my religious beliefs" to ban homosexual
hotel guests etc has no place in modern society, and prosecutions should
ensue. Social attitudes change, and religions should keep up with those
attitudes. Otherwise they become irrelevant. You can't foist attitudes
from 2000 years ago on 21st century life.

A benefit of religion, other than that voiced at the end of your first
paragraph, is to provide some ethical stability. Otherwise we are
buffeted this way and that according to current fashions. We see this
currently with the debate about transgender issues, which has been
bubbling up for some years and may come to be rejected entirely.

Also it is wise to note that the future may change beyond your, and my
recognition. Just as ideas accepted in the past as unassailable, such as
the essential undesirability of illegitimacy and "unmarried mothers"
have changed, ideas that *we* regard as inevitable will, I am sure, be
regarded as beyond the pale, and necessitating insincere and irrelevant
apologies by government and other institutions. And ideas change so
rapidly nowadays, people of today can't be sure they will die before the
changes take effect; they might have to grit their teeth and retreat to
their houses and care homes.

What if a future hotel owner is taken to court for refusing to
accommodate their guests' beloved sheep or goat or insisting on it being
kept outside?

--
Max Demian

Liz Tuddenham

2023-03-24 20:53:49 UTC

I find the whole concept of religion, in the sense of worship,
belief-without-proof, and persecution of sections of the population (women,
gays etc) "naive ... and somewhat condescending" and downright offensive and
illegal. Religions have a great deal to offer as codes for everyone living
together harmoniously, but that's where they should end.
any religion which practices discrimination against women priests or uses
"it's against my religious beliefs" to ban homosexual hotel guests etc has
no place in modern society, and prosecutions should ensue. Social attitudes
change, and religions should keep up with those attitudes. Otherwise they
become irrelevant. You can't foist attitudes from 2000 years ago on 21st
century life.

The critical point, which is usually overlooked, is that religion is a
choice but many of the characteristics regarded as 'abominations' by
some religions are natural variations over which the person being
persecuted has no control.

Women are born women, they don't choose to be women.
Homosexuals are born homosexual, they don't choose to be homosexual.
Transgender people are born transgender, they don't choose to be
transgender.
Religious believers are not born religious believers, they choose to be
religious believers.

They have every right to say that people who choose to behave in a
particular way should be excluded from their club but they have no right
to exclude people because the are black, transgender or left-handed.
Furthermore, they have absolutely no right whatsoever to interfere in
the lives of other people in order to impose their own beliefs.

If I offend a religious person because of what I am, that is their
problem and I refuse to let them make it mine.

--
~ Liz Tuddenham ~
(Remove the ".invalid"s and add ".co.uk" to reply)
www.poppyrecords.co.uk

Roderick Stewart

2023-03-25 09:04:30 UTC

Post by Liz Tuddenham
The critical point, which is usually overlooked, is that religion is a
choice but many of the characteristics regarded as 'abominations' by
some religions are natural variations over which the person being
persecuted has no control.
Women are born women, they don't choose to be women.
Homosexuals are born homosexual, they don't choose to be homosexual.
Transgender people are born transgender, they don't choose to be
transgender.
Religious believers are not born religious believers, they choose to be
religious believers.

Paedophiles are born paedophiles.

Discuss...

Rod.

Liz Tuddenham

2023-03-25 09:30:53 UTC

Paedophiles are born paedophiles.
Discuss...

There are two factors here: what you are born as and what you do about
it. Condemn the behaviour but not the person.

--
~ Liz Tuddenham ~
(Remove the ".invalid"s and add ".co.uk" to reply)
www.poppyrecords.co.uk

Max Demian

2023-03-25 10:42:58 UTC

Paedophiles are born paedophiles.
Discuss...

There are two factors here: what you are born as and what you do about
it. Condemn the behaviour but not the person.

Perhaps "born" paedophiles should be substantially compensated for their
inability to obtain sexual satisfaction in the same way that a person
who is prevented from having sex by an industrial accident would be able
to claim substantial compensation from his employer.

--
Max Demian

2023-03-25 10:49:46 UTC

Post by Max Demian
Perhaps "born" paedophiles should be substantially compensated for their
inability to obtain sexual satisfaction in the same way that a person
who is prevented from having sex by an industrial accident would be able
to claim substantial compensation from his employer.

Only if they agree to have those urges suppressed permanently.

Max Demian

2023-03-25 11:09:06 UTC

Only if they agree to have those urges suppressed permanently.

That's the punitive approach which could only be justified if merely
having an attraction that one hasn't chosen and which one cannot change
is something which it is reasonable to be punished for.

If a male animal is castrated when young it's reasonable to think that
it will never miss sex; this doesn't apply to humans where sex is all
around and is regarded as something of a human right. Otherwise
contraception would be unnecessary, for one thing.

--
Max Demian

Liz Tuddenham

2023-03-25 13:48:47 UTC

Paedophiles are born paedophiles.
Discuss...

There are two factors here: what you are born as and what you do about
it. Condemn the behaviour but not the person.

As society has become more civilised, it has found ways of coping with
conditions that some people object to by varying degres. Some are
merely harmless to other but some are generally agreed to be intolerable
because of the harm they do.

Left-handedness was regarded as the sign of the Devil until about 150
years ago (more recently in some countries), but nowadays left-handers
are often allowed-for in the design of things intended to be operated by
the general public.

Homosexuality is distateful to many people and many homosexuals were
driven to take their own lives because Society could not come to terms
with them and wanted to punish them for it. Nowadays it is recognised
as a natural condition and the pactices associated with it, although
still distateful to many people, are tolerated as long as they are not
exhibited to the public. (Exactly the same could be said of some
heterosexual practices - even kissing between a husband and wife in
public offends some people and religious organisations).

We now understand that the offence is not caused by the person being
homosexual or even indulging in a homosexual act, it is in doing that
where it may be seen by people who do not want to see it. It is not the
act itself, it is the act of doing it inconsiderately that causes
offence; civilised society now recognises that.

Transgender people have spent years of misery trying to hide their
condition and, in the past, have taken their own lives when 'outed' by
the press. Gradually things are changing and I have no difficulty being
accepted as a woman in public. There are still a few hate groups who
have the ear of the press, the BBC and the government, but they are out
of touch with the majority of people, most of whom actually know someone
who is transgender and are wondering what all the fuss is about. Listen
to some of their arguments and substitute the words "Black" or Gay" for
Transgender and, if you are over a certain age, you will find they sound
strangely familiar.

Paedophiles and rapists are more difficult to come to terms with because
they cause actual harm by indulging their natural instincts. Possibly
in a few years time we shall have found a way of letting those instincts
be dissipated in a harmless fashion so that we can tolerate the people,
but never their acts, and accept them into society as long as they don't
cause harm.

Virtual Reality is a contentious posibility, does it dissipate these
instincts or does it tend to encourage them?

--
~ Liz Tuddenham ~
(Remove the ".invalid"s and add ".co.uk" to reply)
www.poppyrecords.co.uk

2023-03-25 14:03:41 UTC

Post by Liz Tuddenham
Homosexuality is distateful to many people

I have no interest in where they stick their 'bits' provided done in
private but why do some many have to speak in very 'camp' voices and
behave very 'camp'. That can have nothing to do with genes etc.

Andy Burns

2023-03-25 14:52:04 UTC

Post by MB
I have no interest in where they stick their 'bits' provided done in
private but why do some many have to speak in very 'camp' voices and
behave very 'camp'.

Puzzles me too, actually I was surprised to find that Michael McIntyre
is straight.

Liz Tuddenham

2023-03-25 15:05:06 UTC

Post by Liz Tuddenham
Homosexuality is distateful to many people

Unfortunately there is still an element of sleaze associated with
homosexuality, a hangover from when it was illegal. Some homosexuals
feel the need to celebrate their new-found freedom by telling everyone
about it (either verbally or by appearance and behaviour).

In a generation or two it will have all calmed down and will be no more
remarkable (to the public or the participants) than hair colour or a
food preference.

--
~ Liz Tuddenham ~
(Remove the ".invalid"s and add ".co.uk" to reply)
www.poppyrecords.co.uk

2023-03-25 15:50:36 UTC

Post by Liz Tuddenham
Unfortunately there is still an element of sleaze associated with
homosexuality, a hangover from when it was illegal. Some homosexuals
feel the need to celebrate their new-found freedom by telling everyone
about it (either verbally or by appearance and behaviour).
In a generation or two it will have all calmed down and will be no more
remarkable (to the public or the participants) than hair colour or a
food preference.

They are their own worse enemies, all the fuss when a celebrity admits
to being homosexual and that he he has tested HIV Positive, he then gets
called a 'hero' and lauded?

Were people who caught Syphilis 'called' heroes?

Roderick Stewart

2023-03-26 08:57:48 UTC

On Sat, 25 Mar 2023 15:50:36 +0000, MB <***@nospam.net> wrote:

[re homosexuality]

Post by MB
They are their own worse enemies, all the fuss when a celebrity admits
to being homosexual and that he he has tested HIV Positive, he then gets
called a 'hero' and lauded?

I've always been puzzled at the business of "coming out", effectively
proclaiming one's unconventional sexual status to the world, as if it
was somehow a matter of importance to everybody else, while
simultaneously expressing a wish to be accepted on the grounds that
it's not important at all. Spot the contradiction.

Rod.

Max Demian

2023-03-26 13:43:42 UTC

Post by Roderick Stewart
[re homosexuality]

Post by MB
They are their own worse enemies, all the fuss when a celebrity admits
to being homosexual and that he he has tested HIV Positive, he then gets
called a 'hero' and lauded?

It's historical, from the days when it was disapproved of and even
illegal. Clearly it was a significant revelation, whether intentional or
not. The modern "pride" form is perhaps an aberration, a "look at me I'm
really important". Nowadays all sorts of people want to assert their
identity, even if these identities are disadvantageous, such as being
"bipolar". (Sounds better than "mani(a)c depressive".) And deaf couples
want to have deaf children (somehow).

--
Max Demian

Max Demian

2023-03-25 16:32:14 UTC

I haven't been able to get a right handed Lancashire peeler for ages.
The ambidextrous ones aren't as good as the peelings get stuck in the
other slot. Otherwise I don't mind "lefties". I've got a right handed
lemon squeezer, but an ambidextrous one would be as good.

Post by Liz Tuddenham
Homosexuality is distateful to many people and many homosexuals were
driven to take their own lives because Society could not come to terms
with them and wanted to punish them for it. Nowadays it is recognised
as a natural condition and the pactices associated with it, although
still distateful to many people, are tolerated as long as they are not
exhibited to the public. (Exactly the same could be said of some
heterosexual practices - even kissing between a husband and wife in
public offends some people and religious organisations).
We now understand that the offence is not caused by the person being
homosexual or even indulging in a homosexual act, it is in doing that
where it may be seen by people who do not want to see it. It is not the
act itself, it is the act of doing it inconsiderately that causes
offence; civilised society now recognises that.

Effeminacy offends the ideal of masculinity. Maybe we need masculinity
(and femininity) for society to function.

Post by Liz Tuddenham
Transgender people have spent years of misery trying to hide their
condition and, in the past, have taken their own lives when 'outed' by
the press. Gradually things are changing and I have no difficulty being
accepted as a woman in public. There are still a few hate groups who
have the ear of the press, the BBC and the government, but they are out
of touch with the majority of people, most of whom actually know someone
who is transgender and are wondering what all the fuss is about. Listen
to some of their arguments and substitute the words "Black" or Gay" for
Transgender and, if you are over a certain age, you will find they sound
strangely familiar.

Again, transgenderism may offend the ideal of masculinity, and many
transexuals don't convincingly look like the sex they want to be.

It's also unreasonable to expect us to use special pronouns and "new
names" and be harassed if we refuse to do so.

Post by Liz Tuddenham
Paedophiles and rapists are more difficult to come to terms with because
they cause actual harm by indulging their natural instincts. Possibly
in a few years time we shall have found a way of letting those instincts
be dissipated in a harmless fashion so that we can tolerate the people,
but never their acts, and accept them into society as long as they don't
cause harm.

The perceived harm may be a social construct in just the same way that
the perceived harm of homosexuality was. There used to be the
requirement that daughters be virgins to be marriageable, and, even now,
the idea that children are "innocent angels" who can't possibly respond
sexually.

There is also the common equation of sex=intercourse when there are lots
of methods of sexual intimacy possible that don't involve bodily
penetration or any physical harm.

Post by Liz Tuddenham
Virtual Reality is a contentious posibility, does it dissipate these
instincts or does it tend to encourage them?

There is no way that any kind of substitute sex, such as computer
generated images, will be acceptable to whoever-decides-these-things.
It's the notion that anyone could find children in any way sexually
attractive that offends most people.

--
Max Demian

Liz Tuddenham

2023-03-25 18:43:53 UTC

Max Demian <***@bigfoot.com> wrote:

[...]

Post by Max Demian
I haven't been able to get a right handed Lancashire peeler for ages.
The ambidextrous ones aren't as good as the peelings get stuck in the
other slot. Otherwise I don't mind "lefties". I've got a right handed
lemon squeezer, but an ambidextrous one would be as good.

Try the 'continental' type that looks like a stirrup, where you draw the
cutting blade towards you. I was introduced to them by a Dutch friend
in the 1970s and found them so easy to use that I have never touched a
'sideways' one since.

Post by Max Demian
Effeminacy offends the ideal of masculinity. Maybe we need masculinity
(and femininity) for society to function.

Effeminacy is quite separate from homosexuality. Why would a man act in
a pseudo-feminine way if he wanted to attract a partner who prefers men?

Post by Max Demian
Again, transgenderism may offend the ideal of masculinity, and many
transexuals don't convincingly look like the sex they want to be.

We don't get to choose the appearance of our bodies - and after 60 years
of unwanted testosterone poisoning there is no way I could modify my
body as much as I would like. That doesn't mean I have to stop being
transgender and it doesn't mean I should spend the rest of my life
pretending to be the man I know I am not. If, on some occasions, I can
pass as the ugly old woman, that is probably the best I can hope for.

Many men have a hidden fear of being less than the ideal man portrayed
in fiction. The first time a slightly uncertain man sees someone who is
apparently male bodied but feminine, he could feel that it drags the
skeleton out of his cupboard and jangles it in front of his eyes. Even
without that, it can be disconcerting to come across someone who doesn't
fit the cozy pattern of man or woman drummed into us since childhood -
we feel disorientated and wrong-footed, it is a more fundamental change
than most of us ever contemplated.

Post by Max Demian
It's also unreasonable to expect us to use special pronouns and "new
names" and be harassed if we refuse to do so.

It is a matter of courtesy. I find it very painful being called by my
old name (which I have forsworn by deed poll) because it reminds me of
something I am not and never was. I am well aware that most people who
have known me for a long time find it difficult and I don't make a fuss
if they slip up from time to time, but I really do appreciate it when
they get it right.

Some transpeople who have had worse gender dysphoria than me really hate
being called the wrong name and react accordingly. Suppose someone
persistently insisted on calling you a foul nickname you had once had at
school, how would you feel? If nothing else, it is common courtesy to
call someone by the name they have said they want you to call them.

The plethora of pronouns is something I find difficult - but if I ever
met anyone who really did feel strongly about it, I would make my best
effort to get it right.

Post by Max Demian
It's the notion that anyone could find children in any way sexually
attractive that offends most people.

Yes, but the ultimate underlying reason is because of the harm it does.

In the long term we need to find a way of preventing the harm so that
paedophiles can be open about their tendencies and get whatever help
they need. I don't know of any way of doing this at present but it
would be a far better way of dealing with the problem than waiting until
they have done the damage and then locking them up to prevent them from
doing any further harm. Perhaps there should be more research in that
direction.

Please don't get the wrong idea, I'm not making excuses for
paedophillia. I've seen the lasting damage it can do on several
occasions and I would love to be able to stop that damage at source.

--
~ Liz Tuddenham ~
(Remove the ".invalid"s and add ".co.uk" to reply)
www.poppyrecords.co.uk

Max Demian

2023-03-26 13:59:29 UTC

I've got one of those "French peelers" but I keep scraping my fingers.

Post by Max Demian
It's also unreasonable to expect us to use special pronouns and "new
names" and be harassed if we refuse to do so.

It is a matter of courtesy.

No it's not. It's a modern affectation.

Post by Liz Tuddenham
The plethora of pronouns is something I find difficult - but if I ever
met anyone who really did feel strongly about it, I would make my best
effort to get it right.

It's pandering to people's fine sensibilities.

Post by Max Demian
It's the notion that anyone could find children in any way sexually
attractive that offends most people.

Yes, but the ultimate underlying reason is because of the harm it does.

The harm is because it's disapproved of. In the same way that male
homosexuals were disapproved of because it was assumed they would want
to bugger teenage boys.

Post by Liz Tuddenham
In the long term we need to find a way of preventing the harm so that
paedophiles can be open about their tendencies and get whatever help
they need. I don't know of any way of doing this at present but it
would be a far better way of dealing with the problem than waiting until
they have done the damage and then locking them up to prevent them from
doing any further harm.

The point is paedophiles are locked up before they do any harm as it is,
unless you believe that nude children are "re-victimised" every time
anyone looks at their pictures.

Post by Liz Tuddenham
Perhaps there should be more research in that
direction.

No-one dares to research anything that could benefit paedophiles.

Post by Liz Tuddenham
Please don't get the wrong idea, I'm not making excuses for
paedophillia. I've seen the lasting damage it can do on several
occasions and I would love to be able to stop that damage at source.

In the case of male homosexuality (which, in the past, was disapproved
of hardly less than, and conflated with paedophilia), the solution was a
progressive accommodation of the propensity, starting in 1967 when
homosexual acts were permitted as long as they were between "consenting
(21yo) adults in private, and the AoC progressively reduced to 16, and
now the assumption that homosexual couples can marry and raise children.

(I can't see this happening any time soon with paedophilia.)

--
Max Demian

2023-03-26 14:39:57 UTC

Post by Max Demian
The harm is because it's disapproved of.

Labour's friends in PIE wanted the age of consent taken right down into
single figures or even dropped completely. People like that need
locking up.

Liz Tuddenham

2023-03-27 08:35:35 UTC

I've got one of those "French peelers" but I keep scraping my fingers.

Try holding the vegetable on the opposite side. :-)

Post by Max Demian
It's also unreasonable to expect us to use special pronouns and "new
names" and be harassed if we refuse to do so.

It is a matter of courtesy.

No it's not. It's a modern affectation.

No, the terminology is recent and, in some cases, may be an affectation
but being courteous and respecting someone's wishes should be universal.

Post by Liz Tuddenham
The plethora of pronouns is something I find difficult - but if I ever
met anyone who really did feel strongly about it, I would make my best
effort to get it right.

It's pandering to people's fine sensibilities.

It costs nothing. If it is an affectation, the person will soon get fed
up with it - and if it is their deeply-felt need, you will soon get
used to it.

[...]

Post by Max Demian
No-one dares to research anything that could benefit paedophiles.

This is because people are conflating paedophillia and paedophiles.
No-one wants to benefit paedophillia but the research they oppose would
mainly benefit the potential victims of paedophiles and, only
indirectly, the paedophiles themselves. Lack of research means that we
are going to be stuck with children being abused and damaged for life
and useful members of society kept under lock and key for the rest of
their lives until someone is allowed to do some research on it.

There may not be a better alternative, but until we start looking for
it, we shall never know.

--
~ Liz Tuddenham ~
(Remove the ".invalid"s and add ".co.uk" to reply)
www.poppyrecords.co.uk

Roderick Stewart

2023-03-27 08:54:09 UTC

Post by Max Demian
It's also unreasonable to expect us to use special pronouns and "new
names" and be harassed if we refuse to do so.

It is a matter of courtesy.

No it's not. It's a modern affectation.

No, the terminology is recent and, in some cases, may be an affectation
but being courteous and respecting someone's wishes should be universal.

It depends on what those wishes are. I generally aim to be courteous,
or at least not deliberately antagonistic, but not to the extent of
butchering the English language by talking nonsense because of
somebody else's fantasy. Wishes can be unreasonable.

Rod.

Max Demian

2023-03-28 16:42:16 UTC

Post by Max Demian
It's also unreasonable to expect us to use special pronouns and "new
names" and be harassed if we refuse to do so.

It is a matter of courtesy.

No it's not. It's a modern affectation.

No, the terminology is recent and, in some cases, may be an affectation
but being courteous and respecting someone's wishes should be universal.

"As a matter of politeness, I want you to address me as 'The Grand
Panjandrum'."

Post by Liz Tuddenham
The plethora of pronouns is something I find difficult - but if I ever
met anyone who really did feel strongly about it, I would make my best
effort to get it right.

It's pandering to people's fine sensibilities.

It costs nothing. If it is an affectation, the person will soon get fed
up with it - and if it is their deeply-felt need, you will soon get
used to it.

Whose needs take priority? Those who want to be called by their "special
name"; or those who have to agree to use a special form of address?

Post by Max Demian
No-one dares to research anything that could benefit paedophiles.

This is because people are conflating paedophillia and paedophiles.

There's no way anyone is going to finance research into children having
sex, even with other children.

--
Max Demian

Liz Tuddenham

2023-03-28 17:17:49 UTC

Max Demian <***@bigfoot.com> wrote:

[...]

Post by Max Demian
"As a matter of politeness, I want you to address me as 'The Grand
Panjandrum'."

If we ever meet face-to-face, I shall do just that. I shall recognise
you because you will be running amok on a Dorset beach, frightening
dogs.

Post by Liz Tuddenham
It costs nothing. If it is an affectation, the person will soon get fed
up with it - and if it is their deeply-felt need, you will soon get
used to it.

Whose needs take priority? Those who want to be called by their "special
name"; or those who have to agree to use a special form of address?

In general it is polite to address people by the name they have said
they would like to be called.

Post by Max Demian
No-one dares to research anything that could benefit paedophiles.

This is because people are conflating paedophillia and paedophiles.

There's no way anyone is going to finance research into children having
sex, even with other children.

Paedophillia isn't children having sex with children, it is adults
exploiting children for sexual purposes. If a child tried to have sex
with an adult, the adult should be able to prevent it; an adult who does
not prevet it is then regarded as just as much of a paedophile as if he
or she had instigated the encounter.

--
~ Liz Tuddenham ~
(Remove the ".invalid"s and add ".co.uk" to reply)
www.poppyrecords.co.uk

Sn!pe

2023-03-28 17:31:11 UTC

Post by Max Demian
"As a matter of politeness, I want you to address me as 'The Grand
Panjandrum'."

If we ever meet face-to-face, I shall do just that. I shall recognise
you because you will be running amok on a Dorset beach, frightening
dogs.

Post by Liz Tuddenham
It costs nothing. If it is an affectation, the person will soon get fed
up with it - and if it is their deeply-felt need, you will soon get
used to it.

Whose needs take priority? Those who want to be called by their "special
name"; or those who have to agree to use a special form of address?

In general it is polite to address people by the name they have said
they would like to be called.

Post by Max Demian
No-one dares to research anything that could benefit paedophiles.

This is because people are conflating paedophillia and paedophiles.

There's no way anyone is going to finance research into children having
sex, even with other children.

PMFJI

Conflation of paedophilia with transgenderism is surely misguided.

IMO the recent alarm about drag artists inappropriately involving
themselves in e.g. childrens' storytime is a different matter, repugnant
though it may be to mainstream opinion.

--
^Ï^. – Sn!pe – My pet rock Gordon just is.

Liz Tuddenham

2023-03-28 21:57:24 UTC

Post by Sn!pe
[...]

Post by Max Demian
No-one dares to research anything that could benefit paedophiles.

This is because people are conflating paedophillia and paedophiles.

There's no way anyone is going to finance research into children having
sex, even with other children.

PMFJI
Conflation of paedophilia with transgenderism is surely misguided.

It used to be one of many lies told about transgender people, but it is
only found now on Mumsnet, in the Daily Mail and the policies of the
last two ministers for Women & Equalities.

Post by Sn!pe
IMO the recent alarm about drag artists inappropriately involving
themselves in e.g. childrens' storytime is a different matter, repugnant
though it may be to mainstream opinion.

Personally I don't find drag or pantomime dames particularly
entertaining or funny, but do we know what really happened or do we just
believe the sensational press reports? If we aren't careful we could
finish up with legistlaton that could be used to ban Christmas
pantomimes.

--
~ Liz Tuddenham ~
(Remove the ".invalid"s and add ".co.uk" to reply)
www.poppyrecords.co.uk

Roderick Stewart

2023-03-29 08:51:02 UTC

Post by Liz Tuddenham
Personally I don't find drag or pantomime dames particularly
entertaining or funny, but do we know what really happened or do we just
believe the sensational press reports? If we aren't careful we could
finish up with legistlaton that could be used to ban Christmas
pantomimes.

Possibly. Some people don't even want to call Christmas Christmas.

Rod.

Roderick Stewart

2023-03-29 08:48:15 UTC

Post by Liz Tuddenham
In general it is polite to address people by the name they have said
they would like to be called.

Names are proper nouns. All the fuss appears to be about pronouns.

I'm quite happy to address anyone by whatever they say their name is,
but I don't agree with changing the rules of grammar at the behest of
a tiny minority group that seems to want to dictate their rules to the
rest of us. For example, there is a convention that seems to have
naturally evolved that you can use plural pronouns for a singular
person if they're (there's an example) unspecified or unknown, but it
feels wrong to use them for a particular individual. The usual
understanding is that whoever is doing the talking is the one who gets
to choose the words, and even if someone else thinks they're wrong,
nobody takes very kindly to being corrected by pedants.

The fuss about pronouns is particularly strange, given that the only
ones that are gendered in the English language are the third person
singular ones, and if you were taking to someone, you would only need
to use first or second person ones, so nobody's gender need be
mentioned at all. The choice of gender would only arise if you were
taking about someone else, who might not even be present, in which
case it would be none of their business to tell you how to conduct
your conversation.

Rod.

Liz Tuddenham

2023-03-30 08:14:23 UTC

Post by Liz Tuddenham
In general it is polite to address people by the name they have said
they would like to be called.

Names are proper nouns. All the fuss appears to be about pronouns.
I'm quite happy to address anyone by whatever they say their name is,
but I don't agree with changing the rules of grammar at the behest of
a tiny minority group that seems to want to dictate their rules to the
rest of us. For example, there is a convention that seems to have
naturally evolved that you can use plural pronouns for a singular
person if they're (there's an example) unspecified or unknown, but it
feels wrong to use them for a particular individual. The usual
understanding is that whoever is doing the talking is the one who gets
to choose the words, and even if someone else thinks they're wrong,
nobody takes very kindly to being corrected by pedants.
The fuss about pronouns is particularly strange, given that the only
ones that are gendered in the English language are the third person
singular ones, and if you were taking to someone, you would only need
to use first or second person ones, so nobody's gender need be
mentioned at all.

The English language is at the root of the problem: When referring to
people there is no alternative to 'He" and "She" other than "It" which
is conventionally reserved for inanimate objects and is therefore
considered offensive. The flurry of alternative words, some made up and
some imported, is occurring to fill this deficiency.

The fact that "They" can be either singular or plural is lost on many
people who think it cannot be true - but in fact use it themselves in a
few circumstances.

Post by Roderick Stewart
The choice of gender would only arise if you were
taking about someone else, who might not even be present, in which
case it would be none of their business to tell you how to conduct
your conversation.

It also arises when the person is present, for instance in a group. You
do need a considerate alternative for talking about them in their
presence and, if you have it, you may as well get used to using it when
they aren't there. If you talk about them behind their backs in an
offensivce way, sooner or later you are liable to slip up and say it to
their face.

I know of instances where an offensive conversation about a person who
was thought to be transgender was deliberately carried on loudly enough
for them to hear. In one case the shop manager stepped in and offered
the offending customer a choice of apologising to the member of staff
immediately or being thrown out.

--
~ Liz Tuddenham ~
(Remove the ".invalid"s and add ".co.uk" to reply)
www.poppyrecords.co.uk

2023-03-30 20:43:31 UTC

Post by Liz Tuddenham
The English language is at the root of the problem: When referring to
people there is no alternative to 'He" and "She" other than "It" which
is conventionally reserved for inanimate objects and is therefore
considered offensive. The flurry of alternative words, some made up and
some imported, is occurring to fill this deficiency.

We seem to have managed with just "he" and "she" for quite some time
without any problems.

Liz Tuddenham

2023-03-30 21:12:16 UTC

We seem to have managed with just "he" and "she" for quite some time
without any problems.

That was because people who didn't fit either of those categories were
hidden, suppressed and forced to lie about their true characteristics.
Biologists recognised the facts, so did animal breeders, but the general
public were kept in ignorance by simplistic teachings and religion-based
dogma.

Now we are less ignorant, we recognise that make and female are not the
only possibilities - but so far the law and the language haven't caught
up with this.

--
~ Liz Tuddenham ~
(Remove the ".invalid"s and add ".co.uk" to reply)
www.poppyrecords.co.uk

Bob Latham

2023-03-31 11:09:13 UTC

Post by Liz Tuddenham
That was because people who didn't fit either of those categories
were hidden, suppressed and forced to lie about their true
characteristics. Biologists recognised the facts, so did animal
breeders, but the general public were kept in ignorance by
simplistic teachings and religion-based dogma.
Now we are less ignorant, we recognise that make and female are not
the only possibilities - but so far the law and the language
haven't caught up with this.

I'll have to show my ignorance then.

Are you telling me there are people that do not have either XX or XY
chromosomes? Because unless there are then biologically everyone is
either male or female.

That does not mean I'm unaware of and don't have sympathy (in a nice
way) for people who 'feel' that they are in the wrong body or 'feel'
less connected to either state.

As I've said before, I think everyone should be able to do their
thing provided it does not diminish someone else's life, we should
also respect people's choices.

I'll be honest though, that does not mean that I'm happy to drop the
significance of biological sex. Only women born with XX chromosomes
can have periods and can be pregnant. As far as I know, the
chromosomes you are born with, you will die with.

I've encountered two people in my life that are trans male to female.
Both are highly technical computer industry people. One is called
Sophie and the other I think was Alice, if I recall correctly. Very
impressive both of them, I wish them well.

Bob.

Liz Tuddenham

2023-03-31 17:53:49 UTC

I'll have to show my ignorance then.
Are you telling me there are people that do not have either XX or XY
chromosomes? Because unless there are then biologically everyone is
either male or female.

There are. There are loads of variants such as X alone, XXX, XYY, XXY
etc and they all manifest themselves in various ways and they have all
got medical names (somebodyorother's syndrome) from long ago when
chromosomes weren't recognised as the cause.

There are also 'chimera' who have different chromosomes in different
parts of their body. In plants this has been known for along time and
causes varigation, but it is only starting to come to light in humans
because chromosome testing is becoming easier, cheaper and more common.
Sometimes this is genetic and sometimes it is caused by a 'foreign body'
such as a transplant in a different organ or by male foetal cells
lodging in various organs of its mother's body.

Post by Bob Latham
That does not mean I'm unaware of and don't have sympathy (in a nice
way) for people who 'feel' that they are in the wrong body or 'feel'
less connected to either state.

Transgender doesn't seem to be connected to intersex conditions; it has
so far defeated any attepts to connecti it to any measureable biological
parameter. Some Dutch research found that one part of the brains of FtM
(female-to-male) transmen had more in common with a male brain than a
female one - but the result of that research is being treated with
caution.

[...]

Post by Bob Latham
I'll be honest though, that does not mean that I'm happy to drop the
significance of biological sex. Only women born with XX chromosomes
can have periods and can be pregnant. As far as I know, the
chromosomes you are born with, you will die with.

That used to be accepted when chromosome testing was an expensive and
rare luxury. Now it is on the way to becoming a cheap commodity, all
sorts of anomalies are beginning to show up - so what we believed to be
indisputably true in the past may well turn out to be just a small part
of a much bigger picture full of contradictions.

Also, not all genetic women have periods or can get pregnant, so neither
genes nor childbearing are reliable indicators of 'woman' - similarly,
not all men can father children. The whole man/woman thing is an
arbitrary reduction of a wide analogue spectrum to an oversimplified
binary approximation.

Post by Bob Latham
I've encountered two people in my life that are trans male to female.
Both are highly technical computer industry people. One is called
Sophie and the other I think was Alice, if I recall correctly. Very
impressive both of them, I wish them well.

I might know one of them through the online AngelsForum group. We make
up about 0.25% of the population Mtf and a similar number FtM, so we
aren't all that rare. There does seem to be a high correlation between
transgender and electronics, high-level computing and autism. There
use to be a correlation with mental illness until it was realised that
the illness was caused by the way transgender people were being treated.
Now that has improved, the rate of mental illness is dropping towards
normal levels.

--
~ Liz Tuddenham ~
(Remove the ".invalid"s and add ".co.uk" to reply)
www.poppyrecords.co.uk

Roderick Stewart

2023-04-01 09:57:43 UTC

Post by Liz Tuddenham
Also, not all genetic women have periods or can get pregnant, so neither
genes nor childbearing are reliable indicators of 'woman' - similarly,
not all men can father children. The whole man/woman thing is an
arbitrary reduction of a wide analogue spectrum to an oversimplified
binary approximation.

The binary approximation applies to well over 99% of the population,
and has been good enough for everyday purposes for centuries. It's
hardly surprising that our language has not evolved the routine
terminology to deal with something that is so rare that nearly
everyone will never have to.

I have no problem at all with anyone whose biology, preferences, or
lifestyle makes them different from the rest of us. I expect that most
will just want to live as normal a life as possible, just like
everyone else, and I'm perfectly happy with that. Live and let live.
It's only the publicity-seeking antics of a tiny minority of what is
already a tiny minority who have recently started demanding that the
rest of us change our language and our ways, and I have no sympathy
for these troublemakers at all.

Rod.

Liz Tuddenham

2023-04-01 10:45:25 UTC

The binary approximation applies to well over 99% of the population,
and has been good enough for everyday purposes for centuries. It's
hardly surprising that our language has not evolved the routine
terminology to deal with something that is so rare that nearly
everyone will never have to.
I have no problem at all with anyone whose biology, preferences, or
lifestyle makes them different from the rest of us. I expect that most
will just want to live as normal a life as possible, just like
everyone else, and I'm perfectly happy with that. Live and let live.
It's only the publicity-seeking antics of a tiny minority of what is
already a tiny minority who have recently started demanding that the
rest of us change our language and our ways, and I have no sympathy
for these troublemakers at all.

Does that also apply to wheelchair users or people with food allergies?
Why install lifts and ramps, or list the ingredients on food packets?
They are only a tiny proportion of the poulation, should we let them
suffer so that the rest of us can have an easy life and lazy thinking?.

--
~ Liz Tuddenham ~
(Remove the ".invalid"s and add ".co.uk" to reply)
www.poppyrecords.co.uk

Roderick Stewart

2023-04-02 08:11:42 UTC

The binary approximation applies to well over 99% of the population,
and has been good enough for everyday purposes for centuries. It's
hardly surprising that our language has not evolved the routine
terminology to deal with something that is so rare that nearly
everyone will never have to.
I have no problem at all with anyone whose biology, preferences, or
lifestyle makes them different from the rest of us. I expect that most
will just want to live as normal a life as possible, just like
everyone else, and I'm perfectly happy with that. Live and let live.
It's only the publicity-seeking antics of a tiny minority of what is
already a tiny minority who have recently started demanding that the
rest of us change our language and our ways, and I have no sympathy
for these troublemakers at all.

Making provision for people with difficulties they didn't choose is in
a completely different category from pandering to the wishes of a
microscopic minority who want everyone else to change the very
language we speak, and to accept such things as biological men in
women's toilets or changing rooms.

Lifts and wheelchair ramps don't inconvenience or cause offence to
anyone, so not surprisingly I haven't seen anyone protesting about
them. Compare this with the situation where a man convicted as a
criminal declares he's a woman and gets himself sent to to a women's
prison, or a bunch of rowdies will prevent someone speaking at a
booked event if the speaker is known to have an opinion on the
subject. It's probably not the whole story, but this sort of thing is
what is getting all the publicity.

It would be interesting to know what percentage of the population is
genuinely affected by an unconventional sexual status, and what
percentage of that percentage is creating all the fuss. I suspect that
in the grand scheme of things the real numbers would amount to
practically nobody, and in reality everyone else would just like to
get on with their lives, but we don't hear so much about that.

Rod.

Robin

2023-04-02 09:01:23 UTC

Post by Roderick Stewart
It would be interesting to know what percentage of the population is
genuinely affected by an unconventional sexual status, and what
percentage of that percentage is creating all the fuss. I suspect that
in the grand scheme of things the real numbers would amount to
practically nobody, and in reality everyone else would just like to
get on with their lives, but we don't hear so much about that.

There's a broadcast answer to that

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sounds/play/m000222z

--
Robin
reply-to address is (intended to be) valid

2023-04-02 11:32:14 UTC

Post by Roderick Stewart
Making provision for people with difficulties they didn't choose is in
a completely different category from pandering to the wishes of a
microscopic minority who want everyone else to change the very
language we speak, and to accept such things as biological men in
women's toilets or changing rooms.

Much of the problems have arisen from a politican group being allowed to
basically brainwash young children.

Liz Tuddenham

2023-04-03 09:30:16 UTC

The binary approximation applies to well over 99% of the population,
and has been good enough for everyday purposes for centuries. It's
hardly surprising that our language has not evolved the routine
terminology to deal with something that is so rare that nearly
everyone will never have to.
I have no problem at all with anyone whose biology, preferences, or
lifestyle makes them different from the rest of us. I expect that most
will just want to live as normal a life as possible, just like
everyone else, and I'm perfectly happy with that. Live and let live.
It's only the publicity-seeking antics of a tiny minority of what is
already a tiny minority who have recently started demanding that the
rest of us change our language and our ways, and I have no sympathy
for these troublemakers at all.

I don't choose to be transgender, I was born that way but it took me 60
years to realise what was going on. Where I have a choice is how I deal
with it. I can either go to my grave still pretending to be something I
know I am not, bitter and full of regrets, or I can spend the rest of my
life as what I know I really am (or should have been). For some people
the choice is much more stark: transition or suicide - I am thankful my
dysphoria isn't as bad as that.

I realise that other people find this difficult to deal with and I do
not try to enforce anything on them that upsets them badly. One friend
simply cannot get around to forgetting my old name - and that is
something I just have to put up with. A family member was deliberately
(and with malice aforethought?) using my old name to score a point, so I
have ceased communicating with her.

Post by Roderick Stewart
and to accept such things as biological men in
women's toilets or changing rooms.

"Biological men" (presumably you mean someone who appears to have male
external sex organs) have been using women's toilets for years.
"Biological women" have been using men's toilets for years. As far as I
know there has never been a problem and it is perfectly legal. Combined
toilets are the real answer: they are cheaper to build, you don't need
as many of them and they work perfectly well wherever they are
installed. In countries where they are quite normal, there have been no
reported incidents.

Single-occupancy changing rooms give more privacy and get around any
problems completely.

Attempts to check the sex of people entering women's toilets in the USA
have resulted in ludicrous situations where genetic women were thrown
out because they didn't look feminine enough. If the UK law were
changed to oblige people to use the toilets of their birth sex, a big
hairy deep-voiced transman with a pseudo-penis would have to use the
ladies and a pretty feminine transwomen with no penis or testes would
have to use the gents. Intersex people wouldn't be allowed to use
public toilets at all. ...and who would check anyway?

Post by Roderick Stewart
Lifts and wheelchair ramps don't inconvenience or cause offence to
anyone, so not surprisingly I haven't seen anyone protesting about
them. Compare this with the situation where a man convicted as a
criminal declares he's a woman and gets himself sent to to a women's
prison,

That didn't happen the way it was portrayed by the press. The most
recent case was remanded in a single cell away from the main prison
population for two days while the case was considered. It so happened
the the accommodation was within the grounds of a women's prison but the
prisoner had no contact with the other inmates. The so-called
transwoman (with no history of being transgender and no apparent
intention to continue that way) was then transferred to a men's prison.

The one previous notorious case was an absolute disgrace and should
never have happened. Nobody has been able to find out why it happened
and nobody has been held responsible. That is not a reason to put
genuine transwomen in fear of their lives by housing them in men's
prisons; that was caused by deficiencies in the prison system.

Post by Roderick Stewart
or a bunch of rowdies will prevent someone speaking at a
booked event if the speaker is known to have an opinion on the
subject. It's probably not the whole story, but this sort of thing is
what is getting all the publicity.

The people who have been no-platformed (to use the trendy term) are
notorious for their extreme views. The same hate speech would not have
been tolerated if it were directed at an ethnic group or at women or in
the Nazi cause - so why should transgender people not be allowed to
object?

As it happens, nobody on the transgender help groups has any idea who
the rowdy objectors were. Of course, we don't know every single
transperson in the country, but nobody we know was involved. The press
constantly refers to "Transgender activists"; who are they and why are
they allowed to claim to represent us - or is it just something made up
by the press?

The publicity is the problem. The press gives totally distorted
reports of events like that because it sells newspapers - and the BBC
then picks up the story and broadcasts it as the truth. The hate groups
know this and they have their own photographers on hand to feed selected
pictures to the press.

Post by Roderick Stewart
It would be interesting to know what percentage of the population is
genuinely affected by an unconventional sexual status,

Intersex (excluding countries which refuse to recognise the condition):
0.7% - 2%

For comparison:
Blind people in America: 0.8%
Transgender in the UK: 0.5% (half MtF and half FtM) at the latest
census.

Post by Roderick Stewart
and what
percentage of that percentage is creating all the fuss.

Most of the people creating the fuss aren't included in those
percentages, they are 'activists' looking for an excuse for a fight. I
wish they would leave us alone and stop pretending to represent us.

Post by Roderick Stewart
I suspect that
in the grand scheme of things the real numbers would amount to
practically nobody, and in reality everyone else would just like to
get on with their lives, but we don't hear so much about that.

The numbers are higher than you think, but you are perfectly right about
letting everyone just get on with their lives.

--
~ Liz Tuddenham ~
(Remove the ".invalid"s and add ".co.uk" to reply)
www.poppyrecords.co.uk

Max Demian

2023-04-03 12:15:14 UTC

Post by Liz Tuddenham
"Biological men" (presumably you mean someone who appears to have male
external sex organs) have been using women's toilets for years.

Have they? I haven't tried. I might be thrown out by the wimmin.

Post by Liz Tuddenham
"Biological women" have been using men's toilets for years.

I've seen that; and also biological little girls, brought in by their
fathers, which is OK, but a bit of a cheek, as I think someone would
object if I /chose/ to wang my todger in their direction.

Post by Liz Tuddenham
As far as I
know there has never been a problem and it is perfectly legal. Combined
toilets are the real answer: they are cheaper to build, you don't need
as many of them and they work perfectly well wherever they are
installed. In countries where they are quite normal, there have been no
reported incidents.

Perhaps you have forgotten the convenience of urinals.

Post by Liz Tuddenham
Single-occupancy changing rooms give more privacy and get around any
problems completely.

More expensive to build and take up more space. I don't know how many of
them there are as I don't indulge in sporting activities and never
learnt to swim.

--
Max Demian

Liz Tuddenham

2023-04-03 13:03:18 UTC

Post by Liz Tuddenham
"Biological men" (presumably you mean someone who appears to have male
external sex organs) have been using women's toilets for years.

Have they? I haven't tried. I might be thrown out by the wimmin.

I have three times been told "You're in the wrong one, love" when going
into the Gents, I have never had any problem using the Ladies. Nobody
has ever asked to check my genitals or birth certificate.

It's not what you are, it's how you behave.

Post by Liz Tuddenham
"Biological women" have been using men's toilets for years.

I've seen that; and also biological little girls, brought in by their
fathers, which is OK, but a bit of a cheek, as I think someone would
object if I /chose/ to wang my todger in their direction.

Do you think that because you happen to be in a Gents toilet it gives
you the right to deliberately expose yourself to little girls - or
anyone else for that matter?. If you started behaving like that, even
if it was only to other men, I wouldn't be surprised if they took
offense and threw you out or punched you in the face!

This is what gives men a bad name and makes life difficult for
transwomen, who get tarred with the same brush, even though many of them
are physically indistinguishable from genetic women.

Again, it's not what you are, it's how you behave.

Perhaps you have forgotten the convenience of urinals.

There are urinals in 'unisex' toilets in Belgium (and probably other
countries too), they are discretely placed beyond the cubicals, so that
nobody need walk past them. Some biological women have learned the
knack of using them too, so they save time for both sexes.

Post by Liz Tuddenham
Single-occupancy changing rooms give more privacy and get around any
problems completely.

More expensive to build and take up more space. I don't know how many of
them there are as I don't indulge in sporting activities and never
learnt to swim.

I have seen them built into portable shower caravans; there were exactly
the same number of showers in the individual ones as in the communal
ones. Individual cubicals also reduce the possibility of theft and make
lockers unnecessary.

--
~ Liz Tuddenham ~
(Remove the ".invalid"s and add ".co.uk" to reply)
www.poppyrecords.co.uk

Bob Latham

2023-04-03 13:24:42 UTC

Post by Liz Tuddenham
It's not what you are, it's how you behave.

Interesting.

Can I take it from that then that you do not consider yourself to be
a woman and may indeed agree with a current definition used my many,
"adult human biological female"?

Bob.

Liz Tuddenham

2023-04-03 14:47:04 UTC

Post by Liz Tuddenham
It's not what you are, it's how you behave.

Interesting.
Can I take it from that then that you do not consider yourself to be
a woman and may indeed agree with a current definition used my many,
"adult human biological female"?

There are so many things that go to make up 'Woman'. Very few women
have all of them and quite a few men have some of them. The incidents I
referred to (and several others unrelated to toilets) took place at
different times during my gradual transition, so as I became more
feminine in dress and appearance and behaviour they began happening more
frequently. Two toilet incidents in three days convinced me that I was
better off using the Ladies than the Gents - and so it proved.

If you restrict 'Woman' to mean 'adult biological female', you have to
define the biology of female. Chromosome testing is becoming more
common and so women who have male chromosomes (somtimes as the result of
bearing a male child) are beginning to be identified. I think they
would vehemently insist they were still female.

If you go by hormones, you will find that some athletic women (who
haven't taken any extra hormones) will be excluded from the definition
and disallowed from competing in sport. They would still insist they
were female; so would older women whose hormone levels have dropped to a
much lower level. Some men also have lower testosterone levels than
some women.

If you go by general appearance, such as breasts, narrow waist and no
visible penis, you will exclude even more women, especially those with a
large clitoris. You will also start to include some men who still
identify as men (and would be very upset if you pointed out why you
thought they were women).

That's only the physical side: then you start looking at the social
side. Are all women housewives - with children, sewing and cooking as
their only interests? Very few men nowadays have said they believe that
and lived to tell the tale!

If someone feels more comfortable in the social rôle traditionally
ascribed to women, does it matter what that person's biology is? If
they behave like a 'Woman' in dress and manner (and especially if they
have their appearance and hormones altered to conform to Society's
expectations of 'Woman') why shouldn't Society treat them as a woman? I
know transwomen whom you wqould never guess had once had male birth
certificates - they are living the life they are most comfortable with
and definitely do not want to be reminded of their past.

I am 'in transit' and will probably never get there, but at each small
step I look back and think "Better or worse?". Invariably the answer is
"Better", so I wouldn't want to go back. How far I have progressed
towards towards 'Woman' is open to debate (which seems to be what we are
doing), but I am a lot more comfortable than if I were 'Man".

--
~ Liz Tuddenham ~
(Remove the ".invalid"s and add ".co.uk" to reply)
www.poppyrecords.co.uk

Max Demian

2023-04-03 16:57:24 UTC

Post by Liz Tuddenham
"Biological women" have been using men's toilets for years.

I've seen that; and also biological little girls, brought in by their
fathers, which is OK, but a bit of a cheek, as I think someone would
object if I /chose/ to wang my todger in their direction.

That's what I meant by people objecting. But it's my todger, and I think
I should be the one who decides who sees it, not fathers of daughters.
They can always take their precious princesses behind the building.

Post by Liz Tuddenham
This is what gives men a bad name and makes life difficult for
transwomen, who get tarred with the same brush, even though many of them
are physically indistinguishable from genetic women.
Again, it's not what you are, it's how you behave.

"I'm a leedy; I do leedies' things."

--
Max Demian

Liz Tuddenham

2023-04-03 19:06:16 UTC

...it's my todger, and I think
I should be the one who decides who sees it, not fathers of daughters.

Don't ask me to stand bail for you.

--
~ Liz Tuddenham ~
(Remove the ".invalid"s and add ".co.uk" to reply)
www.poppyrecords.co.uk

2023-04-03 22:12:05 UTC

Post by Max Demian
That's what I meant by people objecting. But it's my todger, and I think
I should be the one who decides who sees it, not fathers of daughters.
They can always take their precious princesses behind the building.

I don't think most people don't mind small children being taken into
either of the public toilets, rather like many shops will let you take
the child into their toilets even if not normally available for public use.

Sn!pe

2023-04-03 23:57:14 UTC

Max Demian <***@bigfoot.com> wrote:

[...]

http://youtu.be/vvH1LLZeef4
"I'm a leedy; I do leedies' things."

They don't show 'Little Britain' anymore, not that it was
particularly funny way back then when it was new(ish).
Quite apart from knocking transvestism, it took a poke at
disability too, both physical and mental. Then there was
the casual blackface racism; making fun of obesity; the list
goes on and on.

--
^Ï^. – Sn!pe – My pet rock Gordon just is.

http://youtu.be/_kqytf31a8E

Roderick Stewart

2023-04-03 13:25:36 UTC

Post by Liz Tuddenham
"Biological men" (presumably you mean someone who appears to have male
external sex organs) have been using women's toilets for years.

Have they? I haven't tried. I might be thrown out by the wimmin.

Post by Liz Tuddenham
"Biological women" have been using men's toilets for years.

I've seen that; and also biological little girls, brought in by their
fathers, which is OK, but a bit of a cheek, as I think someone would
object if I /chose/ to wang my todger in their direction.

Occasionally late in the evening in a crowded pub, women will use the
Gents because there's a queue for the Ladies. I've seen this myself,
and once a female colleague told me this was her normal procedure
because she could nearly always get a cubicle straight away. In these
circumstances, generally everyone is too drunk to care. I don't know
if they do this everywhere or it's just Liverpool.

Rod.

Liz Tuddenham

2023-04-03 14:47:03 UTC

.... I don't know
if they do this everywhere or it's just Liverpool.

I think the less accurate ones do it everywhere - just like some men!

--
~ Liz Tuddenham ~
(Remove the ".invalid"s and add ".co.uk" to reply)
www.poppyrecords.co.uk

2023-04-03 14:53:21 UTC

Post by Roderick Stewart
Occasionally late in the evening in a crowded pub, women will use the
Gents because there's a queue for the Ladies. I've seen this myself,
and once a female colleague told me this was her normal procedure
because she could nearly always get a cubicle straight away. In these
circumstances, generally everyone is too drunk to care. I don't know
if they do this everywhere or it's just Liverpool.

Probably not a good idea in areas with a lot of migrants of the RoP as
many of them claim not to have been told it is wrong to rape women in
Western countries.

2023-04-03 14:48:19 UTC

Post by Liz Tuddenham
"Biological men" (presumably you mean someone who appears to have male
external sex organs) have been using women's toilets for years.
"Biological women" have been using men's toilets for years. As far as I
know there has never been a problem and it is perfectly legal. Combined
toilets are the real answer: they are cheaper to build, you don't need
as many of them and they work perfectly well wherever they are
installed. In countries where they are quite normal, there have been no
reported incidents.

But not a regular basic - I am sure we have all see someone come out of
the public toilets and look up at the sign as they leave because they
had been in the wrong one by accident.

I doubt whether combined toilets are cheaper to build, men's toilets
must be much cheaper to build than women's and can handle a large number
of customers in the same time.

I have always thought the easiest answer is to put in a few more
disabled toilets and so solve two problems.

Liz Tuddenham

2023-04-03 16:39:19 UTC

MB <***@nospam.net> wrote:

[...]

Post by MB
I doubt whether combined toilets are cheaper to build,

I understand they are where the numbers to be served are similar and the
balance of sexes is about equal. The mumber of signs, washbasins,
mirrors, doors and walls is lower and there are no additional costs
caused by combining them.

Post by MB
men's toilets
must be much cheaper to build than women's and can handle a large number
of customers in the same time.

I noticed an interesting phenomenon at a folk festival with toilet
caravans. There were fewer cubicals in the Gents because of the space
taken by the urinals. In the early morning, at peak poohing hour, there
were queues outside the Gents and free cubicals in the Ladies. Combined
loos would have solved that problem for the men - and the more usual
problem for the women later in the day.

(No, none of the men would have dared to use the Ladies, even though
women were less reluctant to use the Gents.)

--
~ Liz Tuddenham ~
(Remove the ".invalid"s and add ".co.uk" to reply)
www.poppyrecords.co.uk

Max Demian

2023-04-03 16:43:29 UTC

But not a regular basic - I am sure we have all see someone come out of
the public toilets and look up at the sign as they leave because they
had been in the wrong one by accident.
I doubt whether combined toilets are cheaper to build, men's toilets
must be much cheaper to build than women's and can handle a large number
of customers in the same time.
I have always thought the easiest answer is to put in a few more
disabled toilets and so solve two problems.

Label them, "Women and those otherwise disabled." (j/k)

--
Max Demian

Paul Ratcliffe

2023-04-02 00:35:32 UTC

On Fri, 31 Mar 2023 18:53:49 +0100, Liz Tuddenham

Post by Liz Tuddenham
Now we are less ignorant, we recognise that make and female are not
the only possibilities - but so far the law and the language
haven't caught up with this.

I'll have to show my ignorance then.
Are you telling me there are people that do not have either XX or XY
chromosomes? Because unless there are then biologically everyone is
either male or female.

There are. There are loads of variants such as X alone, XXX, XYY, XXY
etc and they all manifest themselves in various ways

So are you expecting someone to come up with an alternative to 'he' or 'she'
for all these cases? If not, then what? One to cover all?
What happens if an XXX doesn't want to be lumped together with an XYY?
It's just the same as lumping all these with either 'he' or 'she' really.

Liz Tuddenham

2023-04-02 07:42:24 UTC

Post by Paul Ratcliffe
On Fri, 31 Mar 2023 18:53:49 +0100, Liz Tuddenham

Post by Liz Tuddenham
Now we are less ignorant, we recognise that make and female are not
the only possibilities - but so far the law and the language
haven't caught up with this.

I'll have to show my ignorance then.
Are you telling me there are people that do not have either XX or XY
chromosomes? Because unless there are then biologically everyone is
either male or female.

There are. There are loads of variants such as X alone, XXX, XYY, XXY
etc and they all manifest themselves in various ways

So are you expecting someone to come up with an alternative to 'he' or 'she'
for all these cases? If not, then what? One to cover all?

I beileve that is how it works in Finnish. The Fins have just as much
difficulty remembering which pronoun to use about people when they speak
English as we do remembering which 'gender' to use about inanimate
objects when speaking French. We think French is making pointless
distinctions about objects, the Fins think we are making pointless
distinctions about people.

Post by Paul Ratcliffe
What happens if an XXX doesn't want to be lumped together with an XYY?
It's just the same as lumping all these with either 'he' or 'she' really.

Exactly. The distinction is artificial in both cases, it is caused by
trying to make a binary simplification of an analogue spectrum - some
people have different mixtures of chromosomes in different organs, so
even a multi-category system will break down eventually. Worse still
is conflating categories with expectations e.g. "most women don't do
this, I have classified you as a woman, therefore you cannot this".

The male/female/neither distinction is important for breeding purposes,
but is irrelevant to most of everyday life.

If someone wants to start classifying me and they put me in the wrong
category and then start treating me differently because of it, I feel I
have a good cause for complaint.

--
~ Liz Tuddenham ~
(Remove the ".invalid"s and add ".co.uk" to reply)
www.poppyrecords.co.uk

Bob Latham

2023-04-02 08:17:04 UTC

Post by Liz Tuddenham
The male/female/neither distinction is important for breeding
purposes, but is irrelevant to most of everyday life.

So what about women's sport?

Is it okay for a trans woman to get a job as a girl's games teacher
in a school including going in the kids changing rooms and showers? A
lot of parents would be very concerned at that.

These are the areas where I'm less happy. As I said earlier, I'm fine
until it impacts other people's lives.

Bob.

2023-04-02 11:26:26 UTC

Post by Bob Latham
Is it okay for a trans woman to get a job as a girl's games teacher
in a school including going in the kids changing rooms and showers? A
lot of parents would be very concerned at that.

I remember there was a case many years where a man applied for a job at
a shop selling party dresses and claimed discrimination when turned down.

A radio programme explained that many of the dresses were so skimpy that
the girls were almost naked whilst being fitted so very embarrassing for
a young girl getting her first grown up dress. All the 'usual suspects'
leapt to the man's defence as expected.

I can see it could be much more complicated now!

Robin

2023-04-02 08:44:30 UTC

Post by Paul Ratcliffe
On Fri, 31 Mar 2023 18:53:49 +0100, Liz Tuddenham

Post by Liz Tuddenham
Now we are less ignorant, we recognise that make and female are not
the only possibilities - but so far the law and the language
haven't caught up with this.

I'll have to show my ignorance then.
Are you telling me there are people that do not have either XX or XY
chromosomes? Because unless there are then biologically everyone is
either male or female.

There are. There are loads of variants such as X alone, XXX, XYY, XXY
etc and they all manifest themselves in various ways

So are you expecting someone to come up with an alternative to 'he' or 'she'
for all these cases? If not, then what? One to cover all?

Post by Paul Ratcliffe
What happens if an XXX doesn't want to be lumped together with an XYY?
It's just the same as lumping all these with either 'he' or 'she' really.

I am sorry to prolong this OT thread but feel it important to note that
presenting these variants as evidence that sex is not binary is
contentious. E.g. someone with XXY (Klinefelter syndrome) is still
male[1].

The term "intersex" is also problematical for the many people with
chromosomal or genetic variations who feel as male or female as anyone.
Hence the preference among many professionals - and others - now for
“disorders of sex development”[2]

The fact that sex in a tiny, tiny percentage of the population may be
ambiguous does not invalidate the concept of binary sexes or the ease
with which the sex of the vast majority can be established reliably by
observation at or before birth.

On the other hand I agree violently that sexual stereotypes should not
limit freedom of choice. That's why I have no idea what it means to
"live in" a gender. (I do know someone who wears trousers, smokes,
drinks, swears like a trooper and has a thing for young women with long
hair would have me teeth out if I said she was anything but a woman.)

[1] https://www.nhs.uk/conditions/klinefelters-syndrome/
[2] https://isna.org/node/1066/

--
Robin
reply-to address is (intended to be) valid

charles

2023-04-02 09:43:26 UTC

I'll have to show my ignorance then.
Are you telling me there are people that do not have either XX or XY
chromosomes? Because unless there are then biologically everyone is
either male or female.
That does not mean I'm unaware of and don't have sympathy (in a nice
way) for people who 'feel' that they are in the wrong body or 'feel'
less connected to either state.
As I've said before, I think everyone should be able to do their
thing provided it does not diminish someone else's life, we should
also respect people's choices.
I'll be honest though, that does not mean that I'm happy to drop the
significance of biological sex. Only women born with XX chromosomes
can have periods and can be pregnant. As far as I know, the
chromosomes you are born with, you will die with.
I've encountered two people in my life that are trans male to female.
Both are highly technical computer industry people. One is called
Sophie and the other I think was Alice, if I recall correctly. Very
impressive both of them, I wish them well.
Bob.

I, too, have met Sophie.

--
from KT24 in Surrey, England - sent from my RISC OS 4té
"I'd rather die of exhaustion than die of boredom" Thomas Carlyle

John Williamson

2023-04-02 12:34:00 UTC

Post by Liz Tuddenham
Now we are less ignorant, we recognise that make and female are not
the only possibilities - but so far the law and the language
haven't caught up with this.

I'll have to show my ignorance then.
Are you telling me there are people that do not have either XX or XY
chromosomes? Because unless there are then biologically everyone is
either male or female.

The way I understand it, barring some very rare cases where there are
extra X or Y chromosomes in the cells and some even less common chimeric
states, the physical pattern for the baby is either male or female.
(Count the ribs, check for ovaries or testes) Mammals use this system,
reptiles and amphibians have a completely different arrangement.

However, the environment in the womb can affect gene expression, which
in turn can affect just how strongly male or female the baby is when
born (How fit for use are the ovaries or testes, and do they generate
the right mix of hormones), and this can affect the brain, and so, the
mind's perceptions. This does not only happen in humans, there are known
instances of even wild mammals acting in a manner not normal to their
genetic "sex". Have you never noticed one cow humping another in a
field, with udders flying all over the place?

Post by Bob Latham
That does not mean I'm unaware of and don't have sympathy (in a nice
way) for people who 'feel' that they are in the wrong body or 'feel'
less connected to either state.
As I've said before, I think everyone should be able to do their
thing provided it does not diminish someone else's life, we should
also respect people's choices.

This.

The one thing I ask is that you do not try to force me to comply with
your "norm", just as I won't try to force you to comply with mine.

--
Tciao for Now!

John.

Max Demian

2023-04-02 16:21:06 UTC

Post by Liz Tuddenham
Now we are less ignorant, we recognise that make and female are not
the only possibilities - but so far the law and the language
haven't caught up with this.

I'll have to show my ignorance then.
Are you telling me there are people that do not have either XX or XY
chromosomes? Because unless there are then biologically everyone is
either male or female.

"The Adam and Eve story has led some people to believe that men have one
fewer rib than women. This isn’t true. The vast majority of people have
12 sets, or 24 ribs, no matter their sex." - Bing AI.

--
Max Demian

BrightsideS9

2023-04-03 08:53:33 UTC

On Sun, 2 Apr 2023 13:34:00 +0100, John Williamson

Post by Liz Tuddenham
Now we are less ignorant, we recognise that make and female are not
the only possibilities - but so far the law and the language
haven't caught up with this.

I'll have to show my ignorance then.
Are you telling me there are people that do not have either XX or XY
chromosomes? Because unless there are then biologically everyone is
either male or female.

The way I understand it, barring some very rare cases where there are
extra X or Y chromosomes in the cells and some even less common chimeric
states, the physical pattern for the baby is either male or female.
(Count the ribs, check for ovaries or testes) Mammals use this system,
reptiles and amphibians have a completely different arrangement.
However, the environment in the womb can affect gene expression, which
in turn can affect just how strongly male or female the baby is when
born (How fit for use are the ovaries or testes, and do they generate
the right mix of hormones), and this can affect the brain, and so, the
mind's perceptions. This does not only happen in humans, there are known
instances of even wild mammals acting in a manner not normal to their
genetic "sex". Have you never noticed one cow humping another in a
field, with udders flying all over the place?

Cows mounting cows is NOT abnormal to their sex.
Farmer Clarkson had it explained to him on his TV show. But here is a
fuller explanation.

https://www.farmanddairy.com/top-stories/how-to-determine-when-a-cow-is-in-heat/464746.html

This.
The one thing I ask is that you do not try to force me to comply with
your "norm", just as I won't try to force you to comply with mine.

Max Demian

2023-03-31 13:07:52 UTC

We seem to have managed with just "he" and "she" for quite some time
without any problems.

That was because people who didn't fit either of those categories were
hidden, suppressed and forced to lie about their true characteristics.
Biologists recognised the facts, so did animal breeders, but the general
public were kept in ignorance by simplistic teachings and religion-based
dogma.
Now we are less ignorant, we recognise that make and female are not the
only possibilities - but so far the law and the language haven't caught
up with this.

There is a very small number of genuinely intersex individuals, or ones
of ambiguous sex, due to chromosomal abnormalities (such as XXY and XO),
defects in the hormonal system, or physical injury.

The current transgender movement is something completely different:
where biological males and females prefer to live as the opposite sex to
a greater or lesser extent.

Transgender individuals may find themselves shunned as any minority
group might.

Manipulating language will just annoy some people and not benefit anyone.

--
Max Demian

Liz Tuddenham

2023-03-31 17:53:49 UTC

We seem to have managed with just "he" and "she" for quite some time
without any problems.

That was because people who didn't fit either of those categories were
hidden, suppressed and forced to lie about their true characteristics.
Biologists recognised the facts, so did animal breeders, but the general
public were kept in ignorance by simplistic teachings and religion-based
dogma.
Now we are less ignorant, we recognise that make and female are not the
only possibilities - but so far the law and the language haven't caught
up with this.

There is a very small number of genuinely intersex individuals, or ones
of ambiguous sex, due to chromosomal abnormalities (such as XXY and XO),
defects in the hormonal system, or physical injury.

It is the other way around: the hormones are made by cells which are
controlled by chromosomes. A hormone abnormality cannot cause an
intersex condition, although it may be a symptom of one. When you refer
to 'ambiguous sex' I presume you are thinking of visible sexual
development, not the actual sex underlying it?

Post by Max Demian
where biological males and females prefer to live as the opposite sex to
a greater or lesser extent.

I would disagree with your use of the word 'Movement', this is something
the press is using to portray us as a pressure or influencing group.
The reason transgender people appear to be becoming more common is that
we are now less afraid to be seen - there are only as many of us now as
there were in the past but we are more visible. The press and the media
are now using us as sensational clickbait, which most of the public are
fed up with - and so are we! Roll on the next fad, so they leave us
alone.

Post by Max Demian
Transgender individuals may find themselves shunned as any minority
group might.

I've only had problems with two people: one is a distant relative and
the other was a friend for over 50 years. One of them told me not to
visit her again because I would bring a howling mob to her door if she
accidentally misgendered me, the other started telling me what clothes I
must wear to an event where I might meet her and has deliberately
misnamed me ever since. Everyone else has been completely understanding
and tolerant.

Post by Max Demian
Manipulating language will just annoy some people and not benefit anyone.

If the language is inadequate, it is easier to change the language than
to try to change reality to suit the available language. Gratuitous and
pointless manipulation is a different matter and I am inclined to agree
with you on that.

--
~ Liz Tuddenham ~
(Remove the ".invalid"s and add ".co.uk" to reply)
www.poppyrecords.co.uk

Robin Williamson

2023-04-01 10:00:49 UTC

Post by Max Demian
There is a very small number of genuinely intersex individuals, or ones
of ambiguous sex, due to chromosomal abnormalities (such as XXY and XO),
defects in the hormonal system, or physical injury.

Like all mammals, Homo Sapiens is a sexually dimorphic species - apart from, as you, say a few genetic freaks which are essentially evolutionary dead-ends (a huge percentage will spontaneously abort anyway) - other mamals would probably eat such new-borns, if they got as far as actually completeing gestation.

Demanding the use of your "approved" pronouns, to feed your mental illness, is not acceptable behaviour and I will go out of my way to be as offensive as possible - I will not be bullied by a small deranged minority - take it or leave it.

Out of interest, what was your name before you adopted "Liz"?

Liz Tuddenham

2023-04-01 10:45:25 UTC

Post by Robin Williamson

Post by Max Demian
There is a very small number of genuinely intersex individuals, or

ones > of ambiguous sex, due to chromosomal abnormalities (such as XXY
and XO), > defects in the hormonal system, or physical injury. It is the
other way around: the hormones are made by cells which are controlled by
chromosomes. A hormone abnormality cannot cause an intersex condition,
although it may be a symptom of one. When you refer to 'ambiguous sex' I
presume you are thinking of visible sexual development, not the actual
sex underlying it?

Like all mammals, Homo Sapiens is a sexually dimorphic species - apart
from, as you, say a few genetic freaks which are essentially evolutionary
dead-ends (a huge percentage will spontaneously abort anyway) - other
mamals would probably eat such new-borns, if they got as far as actually
completeing gestation.
Demanding the use of your "approved" pronouns, to feed your mental
illness, is not acceptable behaviour and I will go out of my way to be as
offensive as possible - I will not be bullied by a small deranged minority
- take it or leave it.
Out of interest, what was your name before you adopted "Liz"?

That is a foul and offensive post. As you are behaving like a troll, I
shall treat you as one and kill-file you.

--
~ Liz Tuddenham ~
(Remove the ".invalid"s and add ".co.uk" to reply)
www.poppyrecords.co.uk

John Williamson

2023-04-01 11:13:47 UTC

Post by Liz Tuddenham
That is a foul and offensive post. As you are behaving like a troll, I
shall treat you as one and kill-file you.

Just possibly, Robin Williamson is feeling unsure of its sexual
orientation and status, so feels the needs to reinforce the stereotypes.

--
Tciao for Now!

John.

Sn!pe

2023-04-01 14:14:42 UTC

Post by Liz Tuddenham
That is a foul and offensive post. As you are behaving like a troll, I
shall treat you as one and kill-file you.

Just possibly, Robin Williamson is feeling unsure of its sexual
orientation and status, so feels the needs to reinforce the stereotypes.

Who cares, it's in the bin.

--
^Ï^. – Sn!pe – My pet rock Gordon just is.

http://youtu.be/_kqytf31a8E

Andy Burns

2023-04-01 14:04:09 UTC

Post by Liz Tuddenham
That is a foul and offensive post. As you are behaving like a troll, I
shall treat you as one and kill-file you.

That is the first time I can remember you getting grief here in u.t.b or
u.r.a, I don't think I see you in many other groups. I suppose we all
noticed the name change, and (not knowing your circumstances) wondered
whether your wife had forgotten to logout and you were replying using
her account, or something like that ... but I don't think anyone even
mentioned it.

Liz Tuddenham

2023-04-01 20:48:01 UTC

Post by Liz Tuddenham
That is a foul and offensive post. As you are behaving like a troll, I
shall treat you as one and kill-file you.

That is the first time I can remember you getting grief here in u.t.b or
u.r.a, I don't think I see you in many other groups.

I'm an active contibutor to three Usenet groups and a lurker on several
others, I'm also a member of two bulletin board groups. So far this is
the only time I have had any trouble. I suppose by the law of averages
I should have expected a neanderthal would turn up on one of them at
some time - it's just a pity this group was infiltrated, as everyone
here is usually so considerate and thoughtful.

Post by Andy Burns
I suppose we all
noticed the name change, and (not knowing your circumstances) wondered
whether your wife had forgotten to logout and you were replying using
her account, or something like that ... but I don't think anyone even
mentioned it.

There have been polite enquiries on some of the other groups but it is
really of no consequence, I am still the same person. I don't mind
answering questions about transgender because there has been so much
false information put about by the 'concerned' hate groups recently -
but I was becoming worried that we were a long way off-topic and some of
the members might have been getting a bit fed up with it.

--
~ Liz Tuddenham ~
(Remove the ".invalid"s and add ".co.uk" to reply)
www.poppyrecords.co.uk

John Williamson

2023-03-30 21:20:27 UTC

Post by MB
We seem to have managed with just "he" and "she" for quite some time
without any problems.

For a number of decades, where a name is ambiguous, I have been in the
habit of using "they" as a singular pronoun. The only problem I have is
that I have a nasty habit of calling all canines "he" and all felines
"she" until I know them well enough to be allowed to check.

--
Tciao for Now!

John.

Roderick Stewart

2023-03-31 08:55:12 UTC

On Thu, 30 Mar 2023 22:20:27 +0100, John Williamson

Post by MB
We seem to have managed with just "he" and "she" for quite some time
without any problems.

Sailing vessels have always been traditionally referred to as female,
even if they have male names, and until the advent of ultrasound I
understand it was usual for obstetricians and midwives to refer to
unborn babies as male. Authors would sometimes put an explanation at
the beginning of a book that wherever masculine words were used they
included the feminine.

Sometimes it's simplest just to "pick a side" and go with it, to fit
with the way our existing language already works. Expecting everyone
else to modify the English language for the sake of a few rare
situations is not realistic. Think about Esperanto for example - on
the face of it a good idea, but hardly anyone uses it. Let's be
thankful that in English we don't have to assign genders to
everything, even inanimate objects where the concept is irrelevant, as
they seem to do in many other languages.

There are plenty of verbal conventions where we don't say literally
what we mean, but none of this has been a problem until recently, when
a tiny minority seem to have taken it upon themselves to make it into
one. If they include anyone whose circumstances make them genuinely
deserving of any special consideration, the antics of this noisy
minority are not doing them any favours.

Rod.

Max Demian

2023-03-29 08:48:45 UTC

Post by Max Demian
There's no way anyone is going to finance research into children having
sex, even with other children.

So "children" (however you define the term) aren't allowed to "have sex"
with anyone, even if they want to, can cope with it, and know whatever
the downsides are?

What about "playing doctor" and the like, or do you dismiss (and
simultaneously decry) it as "just curiosity"?

--
Max Demian

Liz Tuddenham

2023-03-29 09:14:07 UTC

Post by Max Demian
There's no way anyone is going to finance research into children having
sex, even with other children.

So "children" (however you define the term) aren't allowed to "have sex"
with anyone, even if they want to, can cope with it, and know whatever
the downsides are?
What about "playing doctor" and the like, or do you dismiss (and
simultaneously decry) it as "just curiosity"?

Did you read what I wrote? [Paedophillia isn't children having sex with
children]

Two children playing 'doctors and nurses' is completely different from a
child instigatiing sex with an adult or an adult instigating sex with a
child.

--
~ Liz Tuddenham ~
(Remove the ".invalid"s and add ".co.uk" to reply)
www.poppyrecords.co.uk

Max Demian

2023-03-29 16:23:39 UTC

Post by Max Demian
There's no way anyone is going to finance research into children having
sex, even with other children.

So "children" (however you define the term) aren't allowed to "have sex"
with anyone, even if they want to, can cope with it, and know whatever
the downsides are?
What about "playing doctor" and the like, or do you dismiss (and
simultaneously decry) it as "just curiosity"?

Did you read what I wrote? [Paedophillia isn't children having sex with
children]

Children (under 16 or 18, depending on circumstances) aren't allowed to
have sex (especially sexual intercourse) with other children, though
they may get away with it, and may even be provided with contraception
to facilitate the illegal acts.

Post by Liz Tuddenham
Two children playing 'doctors and nurses' is completely different from a
child instigatiing sex with an adult or an adult instigating sex with a
child.

Nevertheless, acts of sexual curiosity usually branded "playing doctor",
are certainly disapproved of by most adults, and usually they will be
prevented from doing then, even though they are usually the only way
they can determine even the elementary difference between the sexes,
unless they have siblings of the opposite sex and similar age.

The whole business of separating adults from children is nonsensical,
and goes against the idea that adults are the responsible ones who
instruct youngsters.

Children are left adrift to fumble their way to adulthood by
restrictions founded in ancient customs and belief in childhood innocence.

--
Max Demian

Roderick Stewart

2023-03-26 09:13:31 UTC

Post by Liz Tuddenham
Left-handedness was regarded as the sign of the Devil until about 150
years ago (more recently in some countries), but nowadays left-handers
are often allowed-for in the design of things intended to be operated by
the general public.

Notable exceptions being cameras and musical instruments, which is odd
if you think about it, given an observably greater than average
occurrence of lefties in television, and possibly showbiz in general.

Everyone seems to manage just fine though; some of the best musicians
and camera operators are left handed in everyday life. Maybe
constantly having to deal with a world that is the wrong way round
gives an increased awareness that there are different ways of doing
things, and thus a greater capability of adapting to the unfamiliar.

Rod.

Max Demian

2023-03-25 11:03:35 UTC

I find the whole concept of religion, in the sense of worship,
belief-without-proof, and persecution of sections of the population (women,
gays etc) "naive ... and somewhat condescending" and downright offensive and
illegal. Religions have a great deal to offer as codes for everyone living
together harmoniously, but that's where they should end.
any religion which practices discrimination against women priests or uses
"it's against my religious beliefs" to ban homosexual hotel guests etc has
no place in modern society, and prosecutions should ensue. Social attitudes
change, and religions should keep up with those attitudes. Otherwise they
become irrelevant. You can't foist attitudes from 2000 years ago on 21st
century life.

The critical point, which is usually overlooked, is that religion is a
choice but many of the characteristics regarded as 'abominations' by
some religions are natural variations over which the person being
persecuted has no control.
Women are born women, they don't choose to be women.
Homosexuals are born homosexual, they don't choose to be homosexual.
Transgender people are born transgender, they don't choose to be
transgender.
Religious believers are not born religious believers, they choose to be
religious believers.
They have every right to say that people who choose to behave in a
particular way should be excluded from their club but they have no right
to exclude people because the are black, transgender or left-handed.
Furthermore, they have absolutely no right whatsoever to interfere in
the lives of other people in order to impose their own beliefs.
If I offend a religious person because of what I am, that is their
problem and I refuse to let them make it mine.

It's rather a complicated matter as, originally, religion was intimately
bound to a society - Ancient Greek didn't have a word for religion; it
was just part of life.

This was complicated when people of a particular religion - e.g. Jews -
moved into a place with a different religion - e.g. Christians. The host
community felt that they were violated by the alien beliefs and practices.

Then we have schisms of existing religions, such as Roman and
Protestant; Shia and Sunni Moslems.

Do people really choose the religion they grow up in, or it determined
by upbringing or where they are born?

With regard to who is allowed in, or what they are allowed to do, this
is also determined by which practices are allowed by the religion.
"Sinners" are not allowed, and the religion decides what counts as a
sin. This obviously could include homosexuality - "lying with a man as
with a woman" - it could equally include whether you are a meat eater or
what race you are - some religions grow up amongst members of a
particular race or like to regard their religion as a race such as the Jews.

A secular community can then decide which practices can be discriminated
against and which can't and these requirements may change with time.

Blasphemy is an interesting concept; why should a god be protected from
attack if it is all powerful? In the past perhaps it was thought that
the crops would fail if God is offended, even by an infidel. Are we
allowed to mock beliefs that we think are absurd? Is it just a matter of
"politeness", or does freedom of speech take precedence?

--
Max Demian

Brian Gaff

2023-03-25 12:38:22 UTC

Yes I gree, and this is why the various Muslim faiths and some others still
in effect see females as property. I think in the old lawless days women
were fair game and making the blokes look after their own was the only way,
but although we still get sexual predators, all religions need to modernise.
I had a stand up argument on a radio station with a journalist when she said
she was against the ordination of women. I mean, its no wonder a lot of
those who happen to believe in god keep clear of organised religion!

Brian
--
--:
This newsgroup posting comes to you directly from...
The Sofa of Brian Gaff...
***@blueyonder.co.uk
Blind user, so no pictures please
Note this Signature is meaningless.!

I find the whole concept of religion, in the sense of worship,
belief-without-proof, and persecution of sections of the population (women,
gays etc) "naive ... and somewhat condescending" and downright offensive and
illegal. Religions have a great deal to offer as codes for everyone living
together harmoniously, but that's where they should end.
any religion which practices discrimination against women priests or uses
"it's against my religious beliefs" to ban homosexual hotel guests etc has
no place in modern society, and prosecutions should ensue. Social attitudes
change, and religions should keep up with those attitudes. Otherwise they
become irrelevant. You can't foist attitudes from 2000 years ago on 21st
century life.

The critical point, which is usually overlooked, is that religion is a
choice but many of the characteristics regarded as 'abominations' by
some religions are natural variations over which the person being
persecuted has no control.
Women are born women, they don't choose to be women.
Homosexuals are born homosexual, they don't choose to be homosexual.
Transgender people are born transgender, they don't choose to be
transgender.
Religious believers are not born religious believers, they choose to be
religious believers.
They have every right to say that people who choose to behave in a
particular way should be excluded from their club but they have no right
to exclude people because the are black, transgender or left-handed.
Furthermore, they have absolutely no right whatsoever to interfere in
the lives of other people in order to impose their own beliefs.
If I offend a religious person because of what I am, that is their
problem and I refuse to let them make it mine.

It's rather a complicated matter as, originally, religion was intimately
bound to a society - Ancient Greek didn't have a word for religion; it was
just part of life.
This was complicated when people of a particular religion - e.g. Jews -
moved into a place with a different religion - e.g. Christians. The host
community felt that they were violated by the alien beliefs and practices.
Then we have schisms of existing religions, such as Roman and Protestant;
Shia and Sunni Moslems.
Do people really choose the religion they grow up in, or it determined by
upbringing or where they are born?
With regard to who is allowed in, or what they are allowed to do, this is
also determined by which practices are allowed by the religion. "Sinners"
are not allowed, and the religion decides what counts as a sin. This
obviously could include homosexuality - "lying with a man as with a
woman" - it could equally include whether you are a meat eater or what
race you are - some religions grow up amongst members of a particular race
or like to regard their religion as a race such as the Jews.
A secular community can then decide which practices can be discriminated
against and which can't and these requirements may change with time.
Blasphemy is an interesting concept; why should a god be protected from
attack if it is all powerful? In the past perhaps it was thought that the
crops would fail if God is offended, even by an infidel. Are we allowed to
mock beliefs that we think are absurd? Is it just a matter of
"politeness", or does freedom of speech take precedence?
--
Max Demian

Max Demian

2023-03-25 16:34:44 UTC

Post by Brian Gaff
Yes I gree, and this is why the various Muslim faiths and some others still
in effect see females as property. I think in the old lawless days women
were fair game and making the blokes look after their own was the only way,
but although we still get sexual predators, all religions need to modernise.
I had a stand up argument on a radio station with a journalist when she said
she was against the ordination of women. I mean, its no wonder a lot of
those who happen to believe in god keep clear of organised religion!

If God doesn't want to be attended by priestesses, who are we to argue
with Him?

--
Max Demian

Liz Tuddenham

2023-03-25 18:43:53 UTC

If God doesn't want to be attended by priestesses, who are we to argue
with Him?

...or Her?

--
~ Liz Tuddenham ~
(Remove the ".invalid"s and add ".co.uk" to reply)
www.poppyrecords.co.uk

Roderick Stewart

2023-03-26 09:22:16 UTC

On Sat, 25 Mar 2023 16:34:44 +0000, Max Demian

If God doesn't want to be attended by priestesses, who are we to argue
with Him?

Is it really God who wants this though? Is it not just bigoted
followers making up their own rules? How do they reconcile the
undesirability of homosexuals with the notion that according to their
beliefs it must have been God who created them?

Rod.

Bob Latham

2023-03-26 10:36:23 UTC

Post by Roderick Stewart
Is it really God who wants this though? Is it not just bigoted
followers making up their own rules? How do they reconcile the
undesirability of homosexuals with the notion that according to
their beliefs it must have been God who created them?

My understanding is that traditionalists argue that Jesus chose his
disciples and he chose all men. Modern day priests are today's
disciples. As far as I'm aware, the bible does not have any text
forbidding female priests.

Now you could argue that times have changed and that in those days of
course he would have chosen all men but probably wouldn't today.

The situation with homosexuality is different. The act is
specifically spoken of in the bible as a serious sin. It is the act
that is a problem not the people with the sexuality at least that is
my understanding.

My personal views are that consenting adults should be able to do
pretty much what they like without interference *PROVIDED* their
actions do not diminish someone else's life.

That view means everyone to me not just an "in fashion" must be
included group who although I support their freedom, I don't support
their freedom playing top trumps over other less fashionable people's
freedoms.

One thing I don't understand is the desire for homosexual people to
get married in church. To me that is a case of having your cake and
eating it, making Christianity a pick 'n mix. If you believe the
Christian teaching then you know it teaches that a marriage is
between a man and a woman and otherwise is a sin. On the other hand,
if you don't believe the Christian teaching why do they wish to get
married in church? Just the building or a desire to show contempt?

Bob.

2023-03-26 14:35:45 UTC

Post by Bob Latham
One thing I don't understand is the desire for homosexual people to
get married in church. To me that is a case of having your cake and
eating it, making Christianity a pick 'n mix. If you believe the
Christian teaching then you know it teaches that a marriage is
between a man and a woman and otherwise is a sin. On the other hand,
if you don't believe the Christian teaching why do they wish to get
married in church? Just the building or a desire to show contempt?

Like many minority groups, they always want more.

The original 'civil partnership' seemed a good solution, it solved legal
problems and was open to all so a non-homosexual couple might want some
of the legal advantages of the partnership over just living together.
But others wanted more.

Makes me wonder what they will want next.

Max Demian

2023-03-27 11:43:54 UTC

Like many minority groups, they always want more.
The original 'civil partnership' seemed a good solution, it solved legal
problems and was open to all so a non-homosexual couple might want some
of the legal advantages of the partnership over just living together.
But others wanted more.

Once civil partnerships had been extended to opposite sex couples it
could have replaced register office weddings so "marriage" would be a
purely religious idea, and religions could allow or disallow whoever
they wanted to marry.

Then civil partnership could be extended to non-sexual relations between
people. In fact it could apply to any group of up to, say, four adults
living together (with dependants such as children). It would be a way of
formalising the legal issues of property ownership and responsibilities.

Post by MB
Makes me wonder what they will want next.

There are already suggestions that complex genetic techniques could
enable same sex couples to have children genetically related to both of
them.

--
Max Demian

Liz Tuddenham

2023-03-25 13:48:46 UTC

Max Demian <***@bigfoot.com> wrote:

[...]

Post by Max Demian
Do people really choose the religion they grow up in, or it determined
by upbringing or where they are born?

There was an example in my family of someone who was brought up in a
particular religion and rejected it, so upbringing isn't a
totally-controlling factor.

Post by Max Demian
With regard to who is allowed in, or what they are allowed to do, this
is also determined by which practices are allowed by the religion.
"Sinners" are not allowed, and the religion decides what counts as a
sin. This obviously could include homosexuality - "lying with a man as
with a woman"

Homosexual practices are not allowed but anyone who thinks homosexuality
(the condition, not the act) can be banned is either ignorant or
incredibly stupid, or both. The same applies to intersex(not a legally
recognised condition in France), transgender (only recognised grudgingly
in special circumstances by the UK government) and left-handedness (not
recognised in Australian schools for a very long time).

--
~ Liz Tuddenham ~
(Remove the ".invalid"s and add ".co.uk" to reply)
www.poppyrecords.co.uk

Brian Gaff

2023-03-27 10:27:31 UTC

Incidentally, today said station still need £1100.
They are looking for a corporate sponsor, but as any adverts they can
actually air have to be of a sort that is not against Christian values, that
would tend to not include most companies.
Brian
--
--:
This newsgroup posting comes to you directly from...
The Sofa of Brian Gaff...
***@blueyonder.co.uk
Blind user, so no pictures please
Note this Signature is meaningless.!

Post by Max Demian
Do people really choose the religion they grow up in, or it determined
by upbringing or where they are born?

There was an example in my family of someone who was brought up in a
particular religion and rejected it, so upbringing isn't a
totally-controlling factor.

John Williamson

2023-03-27 10:51:52 UTC

There is a big difference between not being against Christian values and
having to explicitly support them. Cadbury's and Rowntree were both
founded by devotedly religious families.

I suspect that they are looking for adverts that explicitly support
their creed. There is a regrettabe attitude in most religious groups
that theirs is the Only True Way, and if you don't shout your support
for that particular version, you are a heretic and need to be done away
with. Read the 10 commandments in full, and you will find things like
"Thou shalt not covet thy neigbbour's ass". Note, there is no
prohibition against coveting one owned by a member of the tribe down the
valley.

For instance, most fast food adverts don't support Christianity, but the
products do not go against it. You are unlikely to find McDeadthings
advertising on a Christian station, though they do carry out charity
works based on religious values. The station would likely only approve
an advert for a pen if it pointed out how much better it writes the
Lord's words than the opposition's pens....

Post by Brian Gaff
Incidentally, today said station still need £1100.
They are looking for a corporate sponsor, but as any adverts they can
actually air have to be of a sort that is not against Christian values, that
would tend to not include most companies.
Brian

--
Tciao for Now!

John.

Brian Gaff

2023-03-28 10:28:51 UTC