Riddle me this all you "Men of Science"

Kevin Aylward's choices do seem to be a little bizarre. John Doe is just stupid, but Kevin is intelligent enough that he ought to know better.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

That exacly confirms what I said: you have confused TERFs with genuine transgender people. Debbie Hayton is one of the most vicious purveyors of anti-trans lies who masquerades as a 'typical' transwoman - and you have been taken in by her and her vile cronies.

Now please stop parading their malice and your ignorance.

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

Oh dear.... had your meds today Liz?

That confirms that you are completely delusional.

A TERF is a trans exclusionary radical feminist. They are almost universally biological females. It is thus rationally impossible to confuse a biological man identifying as a woman, that is a trans woman, with a TERF.

Unfortunately, you are clearly not rational as you have indeed clearly confused the two.

Even if Debbie was a trans woman imposter as you claim, it would be impossible to confuse Debbie with a female (a TERF)

..and of course... your claim that Debbie is not a genuine trans woman is clearly because you are a transphopbe.

We all know what you are now.

I might not agree with a trans definition of a "woman" but I most certainly do not object in any way to their right to state "trans woman are woman" and that they perceive they are as they say they are.

My view is more on the line of "trans woman are a woman, Jim, but not as we know it"

Yeah.... the usual derogatory insults with no facts.

What explicitly are you claiming is "vicious"?

I do note Debbie's T shit. I also note:

Laws and practices must apply to everyone equally.

The right to state "trans woman are woman"

must not trump

The right to state "trans woman are men"

ECHR Articles 3, 9 & 10

I presented the evidence that the trans lobby has steamrolled the LibDems, a major UK political party, to have a transphobia definition that makes

The right to state "trans woman are men" as transphobic

Thus all my claims are factually true.

I note that you ignored the nasty list, and your claims of ignorance with no facts and nothing but the usual ad-hominem

what specifically, and factually, are you claiming is malicious ?

Surely not the fact that they are upholding ECHR Articles 3, 9 & 10 ?

-- Kevin Aylward

- SuperSpice

They've fooled you. Admit it and move on.

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

"That which is asserted without evidence, may be dismissed without evidence". Thus your claim is dismissed.

In this case, my evidence was provided that you were clueless on these maters. Hint:

"A TERF is a trans exclusionary radical feminist. They are almost universally biological females. It is thus rationally impossible to confuse a biological man identifying as a woman, that is a trans woman, with a TERF."

Misrepresenting and excluding trans people: "for example criticising both trans women who do not conform to female stereotypes for not being feminine enough"

Thus your assertion that Debbie is not a genuine transgender, according to radical trans definitions, makes you a transphobe. Period.

Your personal opinion as to who is or who is not transgender is not valid, according to the definition. No one else has any right to make claims as to the transgender state of those that declare themselves to be transgender. Its "acceptance without exception" according to Stonewall.

Admit it and move on.

-- Kevin Aylward

- SuperSpice

Kevin doesn't like - and probably doesn't understand - the evidence adduced, so he dismisses it. He likes his delusions and is going to stick with them.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

.and.... exactly what evidence was that?

-- Kevin Aylward

- SuperSpice

The point that Debbie Hayton wasn't quite what you claimed she (formerly he) was .

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

I made it quite clear in my original and subsequent posts that Debbie Hayton was not a represntative transwoman but was paraded as one by the haters that she has aligned herself with.

K.A. took that to mean she was not a transwoman. I have no knowledge whether of not she is 'trans', but I suspect she really is. My point was that she does not represent the majority of transwomen - or even a reasonable minority of them - she is the jewel in the crown of the 'trans' haters propaganda and K.A. was taken in by her and her cronies.

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

Your opinion as to who or who is not a representative of a "trans woman", is just an opinion, and worthless.

This is logically provable, as it is provable that the word "woman" according to the transgender narrative is meaningless babble, for example as shown here:

One can't claim to be described by a word that when is inherently impossible to define any meaning to it.

A logically consistent definition of a transgender woman would be:

Definition: Noun:

Feminor - An individual that identifies as exhibiting behaviour and/or feelings of a female.

"Female" and "Male" are first defined by physical sex such as DNA and so forth. Its objective to at least 99.9% accuracy, and non circular. Its a physical construct that doesn't change with social behaviour.

"Feminine" & "Masculine" are then defined by the stereotypical statistical averages of social behaviour and/or feelings of "Females" and "Males", this is also non circular, but does change if the social behaviour changes.

"Feminor" & "Masculinor" are defined by the those that exhibit "Feminine" & "Masculine" behaviour and/or feelings, its also also non circular, and also changes if the social behaviour changes.

I don't claim that such a definition does represent a transgender woman, only that it is self consistent, objective, and meets many of the claims of transgender woman.

The alternative definition of "woman" as exhibiting behaviour and or feelings of a female, but denying that female is defined by physical sex, leads to the circular problem of, well, what defines female....well those that behave by stereotypical behaviour of woman.....

It just goes nowhere. A woman is defined by their behaviour, and what constitutes a woman's behaviour, is that which a woman does....

If you actually have an alternative non circular definition of "woman" such that a claim to be one isn't meaningless, please present it.

-- Kevin Aylward

- SuperSpice

Not quite as worthless as Keven Aylwards opinion on the subject, but still an opinion.

rding to the transgender narrative is meaningless babble, for example as sh own here:

For Kevin's idea of logical proof, which is great at demonstrating that he likes the sound of his own voice.

ble to define any meaning to it.

Which is to say that Kevin doesn't like the meaning which does attach to it in the relevant context.

Getting tiresome with meaningless denials.

Yep. Totally lost again Bill. As I said, either one can refute the axioms or conclusions, or one cant .

You can't, or your would have. Denial is a losers game. You lost.

As usually, Bill doesn't understand the point, as simple as it is.

If two are in a conversation and use the same word, but each has their own understanding of the word, the conversation is meaningless.

Hint:

If one person holds firm to the idea that "woman" means "acts like a female" and another hold firm to the idea that "woman" means "physically female" and both refuse to budge on the notion that their word is the only correct one, and that therefore when the other person is using the word, they *must* be using as they do, it is impossible to form a consensus on the underlying ideas, despite the fact that both ideas associated with the word "woman" might actually be true.

No, if you do that, with that pre-condition, if proves that your speed measurement method was flawed Because axioms are true by definition.

You seem to be dividing humanity into the biological parents and the biologically childless, not men and women.

Not all of it is behaviour

Hang on, you just said that a measurement of the speed of light meant something, and now exceptions to "physical rules" are not very relevant, which is it?

My opinion is that exceptions prove "rules" to be unreliable, and thus, worth revision.

My condolences to you life-partner. :^)

[snipped the rest because it seems to get even worse.]

--
  Jasen.

That's the key point: if you treat any group of people badly, some of them will suffer psychologically. Until recently, psychiatrists identified gender dysphoria itself as the mental illness, rather than recognising that the way people with gender dysphoria were being treated was the real cause of the mental illnesses.

The various psychiatric rule books are now either in the process of being amended or have actually been re-written to take account of this.

There are still two good reasons for psychiatrists to be involved with gender dysphoria patients:

1) There are some mental illnesses which manifest themselves in similar way to genuine GD and these must be identified and treated appropriately. 2) GD may be the result of social pressure. It was not uncommon in the past for young girls to envy men's privileges and they "wanted to be boys" in order to share those privileges. Untangling that from genuine GD, where the person knows they really are a boy who was unfortunate enough to have had the physical makeup of a girl, is the job of a psychiatrist. Fortunately girls are now much less restricted than they were in the past and the differences in privileges are much less of a factor.

Agreed, anything found on the Web should be treated with the greatest suspicion until the motives of the person who posted it are understood.

I have been trying to remember. I researched them for a talk on the subject that I gave a couple of years ago, so they may have changed again since then. It would definitely have been an up-to-date medical source; I needed to be sure of my facts if I was going to present them to an audience, some of whom might have known more about it than I did.

If you look up some of the recent medical or specialist research you should be able to find them - but make sure it isn't out-of-date or based on defective research methods (a lot of it is).

Over-simplified terms like good, bad, defect, advantage etc. can be misleading. The classic case is Sickle Cell syndrome, which is classified as a 'genetic defect' by western countries, but gives a degree of immunity to Malaria in countries where that disease is rife.

A genetic variation which led to a huge increase in population might be seen as a great benefit - but if that population then turned out to be vulnerable to a previously rare infection and was wiped out by it, the variation would be seen as disadvantageous.

Calling genetic variations 'defects' is not a good way to go; it leads to calling people'defective' if they don't fit someone's idea of normal.

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

ot

e .

Alex Comfort wrote a book - "The Anxiety Makers" - which was rather ruder a bout the medical profession.

The man was something of a ratbag, but his perceptions about the medical pr ofession and their ambitions to be moral arbiters struck me as well-judged.

g amended or have actually been re-written to take account of this.

Not a moment too soon.

der

5%

hey

al

ted

ious

If you are heterozygous. If you get two copies of the sickle gene you are d ead (or very hard to keep alive). In engineering terms, it's a bodge rather than a solution to the problem.

Unfortunately mutations are almost always changes for the worse. Darwinian evolution is a hugely wasteful process, and the balance is between having e nough variation within the the population to allow some of it to survive ma ssive changes in the environment, and the damage done in creating that vari ation.

The husband of the left wing of my Dutch - mixed - hockey team was married to the Professor of Paediatric Neurology, which lead to me polishing the E nglish in a couple of paper s his team published. Most of them were about d ealing with nasty consequence one-off single point mutations that weren't g oing to get into the next generation because the victims weren't going to g row up.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

I've just come across this website:

https://genderdysphoria.fyi/gdb/

It explains the whole business of gender dysphoria much better than I could and it give lots of links if you want to follow up in more detail. It seems that the percentage of the population who are now considered to be transgender has increased again, partly because they are less afraid to speak out.

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