Attention: Please take a moment to consider our terms and conditions before posting.
Waxing dilemna
Comments
-
@paulie8590 expertise hair & beauty
3 -
"Stupidly woke".
Beyond ridiculous.0 -
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...1
-
The world was a much simpler place when you could follow this decision tree:
Do you have a cock?
Y= Bloke
N = Bird8 -
What a load of bollocks1
-
SuedeAdidas said:The world was a much simpler place when you could follow this decision tree:
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)
0 -
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.
5 -
Not according to the law...Greenie said: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.0 -
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.0 -
Sponsored links:
-
Greenie said: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 particularlyIt 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.
2 -
a medal for saying it how it is going this mans wayjohnnybev1987 said:Greenie said: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 particularlyIt 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.
1 -
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?palarsehater said: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.
This whole issue is a legal minefield - don't see where this will end? All starting to look ridiculous.1 -
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.hoof_it_up_to_benty said:
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?palarsehater said: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.
This whole issue is a legal minefield - don't see where this will end? All starting to look ridiculous.0 -
Which is totally fine, but you'd still be a bloke, identifying as something doesn't change biology.hoof_it_up_to_benty said:
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?palarsehater said: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.
This whole issue is a legal minefield - don't see where this will end? All starting to look ridiculous.1 -
The trans lobby would argue differently and the law is unclear.0
-
Then they would be wrong, I have no problem with people identifying however they please, but science is science.0
-
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).0 -
Stu_of_Kunming said:Then they would be wrong, I have no problem with people identifying however they please, but science is science.
How do the Chinese view these kind of debates? Are there similar movements over there?0 -
Who is this guyjohnnybev1987 said:@paulie8590 expertise hair & beauty4 -
Sponsored links:
-
Putting the debate to one side, articles like this on sites that purport to be news sites irritate the hell out of me.
Newspapers and print journalism aren’t dying because of online news, they’re dying because unqualified people became pseudo-journalists.1 -
What is a news site? The internet has allowed everyone to be a journalist and the checks/balances of print journalism have gone.JiMMy 85 said:Putting the debate to one side, articles like this on sites that purport to be news sites irritate the hell out of me.
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.0 -
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!hoof_it_up_to_benty said:
Not according to the law...Greenie said: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.0 -
“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.Chizz said: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).
Forcing women, by ways of some sort of anti-discriminatory law, to touch a penis they don’t want to would be very odd.
7 -
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.Greenie said:
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!hoof_it_up_to_benty said:
Not according to the law...Greenie said: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.0 -
The law will ultimately tie itself up in knots.LouisMend said:
“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.Chizz said: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).
Forcing women, by ways of some sort of anti-discriminatory law, to touch a penis they don’t want to would be very odd.0 -
Just for the sake of pedantry, your statement is not entirely true.Greenie said:
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!hoof_it_up_to_benty said:
Not according to the law...Greenie said: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.
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.
1 -
And this is where we are now is it, this is what happens when we give in to these peoples demands.hoof_it_up_to_benty said:
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.Greenie said:
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!hoof_it_up_to_benty said:
Not according to the law...Greenie said: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.0 -
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.Greenie said:
And this is where we are now is it, this is what happens when we give in to these peoples demands.hoof_it_up_to_benty said:
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.Greenie said:
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!hoof_it_up_to_benty said:
Not according to the law...Greenie said: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.0 -
LouisMend said:
“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.Chizz said: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).
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?1
