A point was made that doctors who study gynaecology would have to extend their training to cover male anatomy as an increasing number of women will have a penis. It is a legal minefield...
There is only male or female. The rest are people ‘dressing’ or ‘thinking’ they are the opposite sex no matter how much surgery they have.
lol this could be a great debate on social media/facebook particularly
It doesn't really bother me 'I identify as ..... ' who cares does it really matter, I know someone who has gone from being male to female, although when they came on a stag do the reason they got annoying was because they kept highlighting the issuing over the top and making everything about them when everyone else was fine.
What makes it harder is those going through transition, they tend to make a big thing about it. A bit like being vegan , no one would really care if they just got on with it and didn't feel the need to bring everyone else on board and try to force their opinions/politics on others.
There is only male or female. The rest are people ‘dressing’ or ‘thinking’ they are the opposite sex no matter how much surgery they have.
lol this could be a great debate on social media/facebook particularly
It doesn't really bother me 'I identify as ..... ' who cares does it really matter, I know someone who has gone from being male to female, although when they came on a stag do the reason they got annoying was because they kept highlighting the issuing over the top and making everything about them when everyone else was fine.
What makes it harder is those going through transition, they tend to make a big thing about it. A bit like being vegan , no one would really care if they just got on with it and didn't feel the need to bring everyone else on board and try to force their opinions/politics on others.
a medal for saying it how it is going this mans way
i could identify as a dog but im still classed as a bloke with meat and 2 veg when i want to the toilet.
nothing wrong with what gervais says the beutician/waxer is quite within her rights to do however she pleases.
If you say you self identify as a woman I would imagine you could go in a woman's toilet without a problem regardless of your genitalia. I'm not sure you'd be breaking any law?
This whole issue is a legal minefield - don't see where this will end? All starting to look ridiculous.
i could identify as a dog but im still classed as a bloke with meat and 2 veg when i want to the toilet.
nothing wrong with what gervais says the beutician/waxer is quite within her rights to do however she pleases.
If you say you self identify as a woman I would imagine you could go in a woman's toilet without a problem regardless of your genitalia. I'm not sure you'd be breaking any law?
This whole issue is a legal minefield - don't see where this will end? All starting to look ridiculous.
I Don't know if that is true i understand the dilemma in simple terms a person with testicles and a penis going into a womans toilet is a man in women's clothing.
i could identify as a dog but im still classed as a bloke with meat and 2 veg when i want to the toilet.
nothing wrong with what gervais says the beutician/waxer is quite within her rights to do however she pleases.
If you say you self identify as a woman I would imagine you could go in a woman's toilet without a problem regardless of your genitalia. I'm not sure you'd be breaking any law?
This whole issue is a legal minefield - don't see where this will end? All starting to look ridiculous.
Which is totally fine, but you'd still be a bloke, identifying as something doesn't change biology.
I have just read that article and it genuinely sickens me.
How many times do we have to read stuff like this? It's genuinely xenophobic and it would be easy to conclude that language like that is actually intended to cause offence and be as divisive as possible.
For those that have read it, I am truly disappointed and saddened that you've been exposed to neanderthal imagery and biased, schismatic rhetoric.
And for anyone who hasn't yet read it: be warned. I am going to repeat it here, just to emphasise the point. So, if it causes offence, please understand that it's only by pointing out the terribke language like this, that you get to make changes. Unless we call out people who communicate in this way, we will never see the change we want to see.
The article actually describes Ricky Gervais using the phrase "the creator of the UK version of The Office". Absolutely unnecessary and unforgivable.
(As far as the waxing thing is concerned, just get on with it. And don't discriminate between customers based on their gender. It's pretty simple).
There is only male or female. The rest are people ‘dressing’ or ‘thinking’ they are the opposite sex no matter how much surgery they have.
Not according to the law...
I don’t care what the law says, the facts are that there are only male and female, facts dont lie, and I am not going to play pretend and suspend everything that I know and we know as a species, just because some attention seeker wants to be known as something else!
I have just read that article and it genuinely sickens me.
How many times do we have to read stuff like this? It's genuinely xenophobic and it would be easy to conclude that language like that is actually intended to cause offence and be as divisive as possible.
For those that have read it, I am truly disappointed and saddened that you've been exposed to neanderthal imagery and biased, schismatic rhetoric.
And for anyone who hasn't yet read it: be warned. I am going to repeat it here, just to emphasise the point. So, if it causes offence, please understand that it's only by pointing out the terribke language like this, that you get to make changes. Unless we call out people who communicate in this way, we will never see the change we want to see.
The article actually describes Ricky Gervais using the phrase "the creator of the UK version of The Office". Absolutely unnecessary and unforgivable.
(As far as the waxing thing is concerned, just get on with it. And don't discriminate between customers based on their gender. It's pretty simple).
“Should a woman be forced by law to touch a penis she doesn’t want to touch?” is the crux of this case really. It shouldn’t be considered discriminatory if a female waxer doesn’t want to touch a male sexual organ that she doesn’t want to.
Forcing women, by ways of some sort of anti-discriminatory law, to touch a penis they don’t want to would be very odd.
There is only male or female. The rest are people ‘dressing’ or ‘thinking’ they are the opposite sex no matter how much surgery they have.
Not according to the law...
I don’t care what the law says, the facts are that there are only male and female, facts dont lie, and I am not going to play pretend and suspend everything that I know and we know as a species, just because some attention seeker wants to be known as something else!
If you work in certain jobs the law will affect you whether you like it or not - very difficult in healthcare and education. As an individual you might find something ridiculous but your views will have to be kept private.
I have just read that article and it genuinely sickens me.
How many times do we have to read stuff like this? It's genuinely xenophobic and it would be easy to conclude that language like that is actually intended to cause offence and be as divisive as possible.
For those that have read it, I am truly disappointed and saddened that you've been exposed to neanderthal imagery and biased, schismatic rhetoric.
And for anyone who hasn't yet read it: be warned. I am going to repeat it here, just to emphasise the point. So, if it causes offence, please understand that it's only by pointing out the terribke language like this, that you get to make changes. Unless we call out people who communicate in this way, we will never see the change we want to see.
The article actually describes Ricky Gervais using the phrase "the creator of the UK version of The Office". Absolutely unnecessary and unforgivable.
(As far as the waxing thing is concerned, just get on with it. And don't discriminate between customers based on their gender. It's pretty simple).
“Should a woman be forced by law to touch a penis she doesn’t want to touch?” is the crux of this case really. It shouldn’t be considered discriminatory if a female waxer doesn’t want to touch a male sexual organ that she doesn’t want to.
Forcing women, by ways of some sort of anti-discriminatory law, to touch a penis they don’t want to would be very odd.
There is only male or female. The rest are people ‘dressing’ or ‘thinking’ they are the opposite sex no matter how much surgery they have.
Not according to the law...
I don’t care what the law says, the facts are that there are only male and female, facts dont lie, and I am not going to play pretend and suspend everything that I know and we know as a species, just because some attention seeker wants to be known as something else!
Just for the sake of pedantry, your statement is not entirely true.
While statistically there may be only male or female - medical science does recognise hermaphroditism.
So, the facts aren't that there are ONLY male and female.
There is only male or female. The rest are people ‘dressing’ or ‘thinking’ they are the opposite sex no matter how much surgery they have.
Not according to the law...
I don’t care what the law says, the facts are that there are only male and female, facts dont lie, and I am not going to play pretend and suspend everything that I know and we know as a species, just because some attention seeker wants to be known as something else!
If you work in certain jobs the law will affect you whether you like it or not - very difficult in healthcare and education. As an individual you might find something ridiculous but your views will have to be kept private.
And this is where we are now is it, this is what happens when we give in to these peoples demands.
There is only male or female. The rest are people ‘dressing’ or ‘thinking’ they are the opposite sex no matter how much surgery they have.
Not according to the law...
I don’t care what the law says, the facts are that there are only male and female, facts dont lie, and I am not going to play pretend and suspend everything that I know and we know as a species, just because some attention seeker wants to be known as something else!
If you work in certain jobs the law will affect you whether you like it or not - very difficult in healthcare and education. As an individual you might find something ridiculous but your views will have to be kept private.
And this is where we are now is it, this is what happens when we give in to these peoples demands.
The law is the law whatever you think of it. Sometimes it may appear nonsensical and how you address it in certain jobs can be very difficult.
I have just read that article and it genuinely sickens me.
How many times do we have to read stuff like this? It's genuinely xenophobic and it would be easy to conclude that language like that is actually intended to cause offence and be as divisive as possible.
For those that have read it, I am truly disappointed and saddened that you've been exposed to neanderthal imagery and biased, schismatic rhetoric.
And for anyone who hasn't yet read it: be warned. I am going to repeat it here, just to emphasise the point. So, if it causes offence, please understand that it's only by pointing out the terribke language like this, that you get to make changes. Unless we call out people who communicate in this way, we will never see the change we want to see.
The article actually describes Ricky Gervais using the phrase "the creator of the UK version of The Office". Absolutely unnecessary and unforgivable.
(As far as the waxing thing is concerned, just get on with it. And don't discriminate between customers based on their gender. It's pretty simple).
“Should a woman be forced by law to touch a penis she doesn’t want to touch?” is the crux of this case really. It shouldn’t be considered discriminatory if a female waxer doesn’t want to touch a male sexual organ that she doesn’t want to.
Forcing women, by ways of some sort of anti-discriminatory law, to touch a penis they don’t want to would be very odd.
If a woman is forced to touch a trans penis it would be discriminatory if she wasnt forced to touch any other mans penis. Why not #MeToo?
Comments
Beyond ridiculous.
Do you have a cock?
Y= Bloke
N = Bird
Technically should be:
Do you have a V?
YES = FEMALE (Bird)
NO:
Do you have a P ONLY?
YES = MALE (Bloke)
NO = INTERSEX (Either, one sex is generally more prominant)
The rest are people ‘dressing’ or ‘thinking’ they are the opposite sex no matter how much surgery they have.
Stand by for reaction to this post mate!
nothing wrong with what gervais says the beutician/waxer is quite within her rights to do however she pleases.
lol this could be a great debate on social media/facebook particularly
It doesn't really bother me 'I identify as ..... ' who cares does it really matter, I know someone who has gone from being male to female, although when they came on a stag do the reason they got annoying was because they kept highlighting the issuing over the top and making everything about them when everyone else was fine.
What makes it harder is those going through transition, they tend to make a big thing about it. A bit like being vegan , no one would really care if they just got on with it and didn't feel the need to bring everyone else on board and try to force their opinions/politics on others.
This whole issue is a legal minefield - don't see where this will end? All starting to look ridiculous.
How many times do we have to read stuff like this? It's genuinely xenophobic and it would be easy to conclude that language like that is actually intended to cause offence and be as divisive as possible.
For those that have read it, I am truly disappointed and saddened that you've been exposed to neanderthal imagery and biased, schismatic rhetoric.
And for anyone who hasn't yet read it: be warned. I am going to repeat it here, just to emphasise the point. So, if it causes offence, please understand that it's only by pointing out the terribke language like this, that you get to make changes. Unless we call out people who communicate in this way, we will never see the change we want to see.
The article actually describes Ricky Gervais using the phrase "the creator of the UK version of The Office". Absolutely unnecessary and unforgivable.
(As far as the waxing thing is concerned, just get on with it. And don't discriminate between customers based on their gender. It's pretty simple).
How do the Chinese view these kind of debates? Are there similar movements over there?
Newspapers and print journalism aren’t dying because of online news, they’re dying because unqualified people became pseudo-journalists.
What do you propose? Can't undo technology.
Forcing women, by ways of some sort of anti-discriminatory law, to touch a penis they don’t want to would be very odd.
While statistically there may be only male or female - medical science does recognise hermaphroditism.
So, the facts aren't that there are ONLY male and female.
If a woman is forced to touch a trans penis it would be discriminatory if she wasnt forced to touch any other mans penis. Why not #MeToo?