comment by Oscar #TeamFury. It’s Coming Homeeeee! (U12980)
posted 3 minutes ago
Peks is a bit of a brainwashed loony but so are you Rob to be fair
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Saying ‘to be fair’ after a sentence doesn’t make it true.
Most people on here put you in the same basket as Peks which is a scary place to be.
Oscy
Good listen this: 👇
https://twitter.com/TuckerCarlson/status/1673856877841764352
https://twitter.com/JeffreyTowson/status/1673863431181713409/photo/1
The absolute state of 'Murica 👇
"Tucker Carlson: “A whistleblower produces a text message SHOWING that Joe Biden was in the room with his son when his son was selling influence to an enemy power—the Chinese government.
And ABC’s take on it? ‘Joe Biden is a father first—take it or leave it!’ What accounts for a response like that? Well, that’s the way you talk when you’ve got nothing to fear from an upcoming presidential election. You don’t even bother to think of an excuse for your candidate because you don’t need to. Your country has electronic voting machines!
Joe Biden got 81,282,916 votes in 2020, and you’re pretty sure he can do it again; in fact, you know he can. You’re not worried.”
Angel Dust and Peks just don't mix.
comment by Boris 'Inky’ Gibson (U5901)
posted 14 minutes ago
Angel Dust and Peks just don't mix.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Even though ‘Angel dust’ is the name Peks’ KGB handler uses for him.
comment by Robb (Steve) Smith (U22716)
posted 1 hour, 43 minutes ago
comment by Oscar #TeamFury. It’s Coming Homeeeee! (U12980)
posted 3 minutes ago
Peks is a bit of a brainwashed loony but so are you Rob to be fair
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Saying ‘to be fair’ after a sentence doesn’t make it true.
Most people on here put you in the same basket as Peks which is a scary place to be.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Ironic given the majority of the main board think you’re a massive crank and a laughing stock
comment by Pekov - Supreme Commander (U6618)
posted 1 hour, 4 minutes ago
Oscy
Good listen this: 👇
https://twitter.com/TuckerCarlson/status/1673856877841764352
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Tucker’s a khunt mate he supports Russia
comment by Sat Nav (U18243)
posted 16 hours, 36 minutes ago
comment by bmcl1987 - the M stands for meltdown 🤓 (U14177)
posted 1 hour, 13 minutes ago
comment by Sat Nav (U18243)
posted 5 minutes ago
“We tackle these behaviours I would suggest would be likely to have a far more profound impact on rates of assault than targeting trans people“
Again, this is not about targeting trans people or attacking trans people, but protecting women.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It is targeting trans people. Who have, for a long time, been using the toilet that aligns to their gender as opposed to their shex at birth. Why do you think it is not about targeting trans people, given the policy is “you trans people, you can’t urinate or defacate here”?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
If there is no increased danger with gender neutral toilets and such then why is it a problem to have male, female and neutral facilities? It’s not targeting, that’s victim linguistics, it’s categorising which is something we do throughout society in many, many ways.
If someone has no issue using the same facilities as any of the god knows how many genders, then they can use the gender neutral facilities. Men’s are for men and women’s are for women.
You might not agree with the safety aspect and your friends and/or spouses might not. But that doesn’t mean that there aren’t women who feel very uncomfortable (let alone children) undressing around someone who identifies as a woman but is still hairy and pardon my French but still has *ôck. It’s not bigotry, it’s not transphobia; lots of people just don’t want to share spaces that involves de-robing with people of the opposite s3x (gender is separate). It’s not that difficult to understand or respect that.
You can use the neutral toilets, your wife can, anyone can. Go for it. But if we’re going to purport to being truly inclusive, then let’s include those whom are not comfortable and want a separate space designated by s3x as we have generally had across the world for the last god knows how many years.
3 spaces MFN is clearly the best compromise to suit all.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I’m unsure of the practicalities of converting the hundreds of thousands or indeed millions of toilet setups in public spaces into your MFN proposal.
Now you pivoted to the general term “facilities” as opposed to “toilets”, so would ask that we stick with toilets. Does your position re “facilities” also carry over to toilets?
And it seems you have a position where if a trans person has had “bottom” surgery, you are fine with them being in the changing room of their gender, is this correct?
Feeling uncomfortable because a someone who is part of a marginalised minority is close to you, or undressing near you; that is what you are suggesting is not bigotry or transphobia. Now imagine that the minority was a gay man in the 80s, or a black man in the 50s? This “feeling uncomfortable” is exactly the type of politically correct positioning those who didn’t want black people near them, or gay people near them. We would call these homophobia and racism. Why not call a spade a spade and refer to it as transphobia?
comment by Oscar #TeamFury. It’s Coming Homeeeee! (U12980)
posted 7 minutes ago
comment by Robb (Steve) Smith (U22716)
posted 1 hour, 43 minutes ago
comment by Oscar #TeamFury. It’s Coming Homeeeee! (U12980)
posted 3 minutes ago
Peks is a bit of a brainwashed loony but so are you Rob to be fair
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Saying ‘to be fair’ after a sentence doesn’t make it true.
Most people on here put you in the same basket as Peks which is a scary place to be.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Ironic given the majority of the main board think you’re a massive crank and a laughing stock
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Literally no one does but you do you boo.
Oh and Satters, was keen to understand your journey to the position you hold re trans people? Per below from page 3500
“For those who are not on the side of trans people, I would be interested in understanding of how they established their position. In the interests of transparency I was very “on the fence” regarding trans people for a long time, up until around 2021. But I did research, I listened online and in person to multiple perspectives, including speaking directly with friends of Jo Rowling, and landed in my considered position as of today. Interestingly my wife was more than happy for trans women to be in the same toilets and changing rooms as her from the outset of my “journey of discovery”, and I do enjoy being contrarian with her.”
comment by FieldsofAnfieldRd (U18971)
posted 1 hour, 35 minutes ago
comment by Boris 'Inky’ Gibson (U5901)
posted 14 minutes ago
Angel Dust and Peks just don't mix.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Even though ‘Angel dust’ is the name Peks’ KGB handler uses for him.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Reckon their are at least 4 Russian stooge accounts on here. Some are mega obvious.
comment by Pekov - Supreme Commander (U6618)
posted 2 hours, 22 minutes ago
The absolute state of 'Murica👇
"Tucker Carlson: “A whistleblower produces a text message SHOWING that Joe Biden was in the room with his son when his son was selling influence to an enemy power—the Chinese government.
And ABC’s take on it? ‘Joe Biden is a father first—take it or leave it!’ What accounts for a response like that? Well, that’s the way you talk when you’ve got nothing to fear from an upcoming presidential election. You don’t even bother to think of an excuse for your candidate because you don’t need to. Your country has electronic voting machines!
Joe Biden got 81,282,916 votes in 2020, and you’re pretty sure he can do it again; in fact, you know he can. You’re not worried.”
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Do u ever read whut u rite?
comment by Admin1 (U1)
posted 29 minutes ago
comment by FieldsofAnfieldRd (U18971)
posted 1 hour, 35 minutes ago
comment by Boris 'Inky’ Gibson (U5901)
posted 14 minutes ago
Angel Dust and Peks just don't mix.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Even though ‘Angel dust’ is the name Peks’ KGB handler uses for him.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Reckon their are at least 4 Russian stooge accounts on here. Some are mega obvious.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Two are blindingly obvious. The other two (plus) must be more sophisticated, or I haven’t encountered them.
It amazes me that the very obvious ones persist, given that they’re called out as being Russian stooges just about every time they post, and the majority of regular posters recognise them as being such.
Surely when you’re so craaap at this particular job, you just end up being counterproductive to the cause?
Hey FSB handlers, if you’re out there: You have some ‘retraining’ to do with a few of your lads
comment by bmcl1987 - the M stands for meltdown 🤓 (U14177)
posted 1 hour, 50 minutes ago
comment by Sat Nav (U18243)
posted 16 hours, 36 minutes ago
comment by bmcl1987 - the M stands for meltdown 🤓 (U14177)
posted 1 hour, 13 minutes ago
comment by Sat Nav (U18243)
posted 5 minutes ago
“We tackle these behaviours I would suggest would be likely to have a far more profound impact on rates of assault than targeting trans people“
Again, this is not about targeting trans people or attacking trans people, but protecting women.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It is targeting trans people. Who have, for a long time, been using the toilet that aligns to their gender as opposed to their shex at birth. Why do you think it is not about targeting trans people, given the policy is “you trans people, you can’t urinate or defacate here”?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
If there is no increased danger with gender neutral toilets and such then why is it a problem to have male, female and neutral facilities? It’s not targeting, that’s victim linguistics, it’s categorising which is something we do throughout society in many, many ways.
If someone has no issue using the same facilities as any of the god knows how many genders, then they can use the gender neutral facilities. Men’s are for men and women’s are for women.
You might not agree with the safety aspect and your friends and/or spouses might not. But that doesn’t mean that there aren’t women who feel very uncomfortable (let alone children) undressing around someone who identifies as a woman but is still hairy and pardon my French but still has *ôck. It’s not bigotry, it’s not transphobia; lots of people just don’t want to share spaces that involves de-robing with people of the opposite s3x (gender is separate). It’s not that difficult to understand or respect that.
You can use the neutral toilets, your wife can, anyone can. Go for it. But if we’re going to purport to being truly inclusive, then let’s include those whom are not comfortable and want a separate space designated by s3x as we have generally had across the world for the last god knows how many years.
3 spaces MFN is clearly the best compromise to suit all.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I’m unsure of the practicalities of converting the hundreds of thousands or indeed millions of toilet setups in public spaces into your MFN proposal.
Now you pivoted to the general term “facilities” as opposed to “toilets”, so would ask that we stick with toilets. Does your position re “facilities” also carry over to toilets?
And it seems you have a position where if a trans person has had “bottom” surgery, you are fine with them being in the changing room of their gender, is this correct?
Feeling uncomfortable because a someone who is part of a marginalised minority is close to you, or undressing near you; that is what you are suggesting is not bigotry or transphobia. Now imagine that the minority was a gay man in the 80s, or a black man in the 50s? This “feeling uncomfortable” is exactly the type of politically correct positioning those who didn’t want black people near them, or gay people near them. We would call these homophobia and racism. Why not call a spade a spade and refer to it as transphobia?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Well said, young man.
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
comment by bmcl1987 - the M stands for meltdown 🤓 (U14177)
posted 1 hour, 57 minutes ago
comment by Sat Nav (U18243)
posted 16 hours, 36 minutes ago
comment by bmcl1987 - the M stands for meltdown 🤓 (U14177)
posted 1 hour, 13 minutes ago
comment by Sat Nav (U18243)
posted 5 minutes ago
“We tackle these behaviours I would suggest would be likely to have a far more profound impact on rates of assault than targeting trans people“
Again, this is not about targeting trans people or attacking trans people, but protecting women.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It is targeting trans people. Who have, for a long time, been using the toilet that aligns to their gender as opposed to their shex at birth. Why do you think it is not about targeting trans people, given the policy is “you trans people, you can’t urinate or defacate here”?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
If there is no increased danger with gender neutral toilets and such then why is it a problem to have male, female and neutral facilities? It’s not targeting, that’s victim linguistics, it’s categorising which is something we do throughout society in many, many ways.
If someone has no issue using the same facilities as any of the god knows how many genders, then they can use the gender neutral facilities. Men’s are for men and women’s are for women.
You might not agree with the safety aspect and your friends and/or spouses might not. But that doesn’t mean that there aren’t women who feel very uncomfortable (let alone children) undressing around someone who identifies as a woman but is still hairy and pardon my French but still has *ôck. It’s not bigotry, it’s not transphobia; lots of people just don’t want to share spaces that involves de-robing with people of the opposite s3x (gender is separate). It’s not that difficult to understand or respect that.
You can use the neutral toilets, your wife can, anyone can. Go for it. But if we’re going to purport to being truly inclusive, then let’s include those whom are not comfortable and want a separate space designated by s3x as we have generally had across the world for the last god knows how many years.
3 spaces MFN is clearly the best compromise to suit all.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I’m unsure of the practicalities of converting the hundreds of thousands or indeed millions of toilet setups in public spaces into your MFN proposal.
Now you pivoted to the general term “facilities” as opposed to “toilets”, so would ask that we stick with toilets. Does your position re “facilities” also carry over to toilets?
And it seems you have a position where if a trans person has had “bottom” surgery, you are fine with them being in the changing room of their gender, is this correct?
Feeling uncomfortable because a someone who is part of a marginalised minority is close to you, or undressing near you; that is what you are suggesting is not bigotry or transphobia. Now imagine that the minority was a gay man in the 80s, or a black man in the 50s? This “feeling uncomfortable” is exactly the type of politically correct positioning those who didn’t want black people near them, or gay people near them. We would call these homophobia and racism. Why not call a spade a spade and refer to it as transphobia?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
As Insert and I mentioned, the cost to do this, and the real estate would be very difficult indeed.
You keep framing things and twisting things mate, I’m starting to regret engaging.
It’s not fear of a marginalised group, it’s literally being a woman and being in a space where there are exposed male genitalia around. Same for little girls.
There is the additional concern that straight males will take advantage of these spaces and assault females. If there is no such risk, then there is no problem having a neutral toilet.
I use the term facilities because this issue doesn’t just affect toilets. It’s also relevant to changing rooms in shops, leisure centres, gyms etc etc. facilities is the most appropriate term in this regard.
If someone were to refuse to acknowledge someone post-op then this would be transphobia, let us not pretend that there isn’t a difference between a 6ft guy with a beard, makeup, a dress and male genitalia and someone that has gone through the whole operation.
comment by bmcl1987 - the M stands for meltdown 🤓 (U14177)
posted 1 hour, 59 minutes ago
Oh and Satters, was keen to understand your journey to the position you hold re trans people? Per below from page 3500
“For those who are not on the side of trans people, I would be interested in understanding of how they established their position. In the interests of transparency I was very “on the fence” regarding trans people for a long time, up until around 2021. But I did research, I listened online and in person to multiple perspectives, including speaking directly with friends of Jo Rowling, and landed in my considered position as of today. Interestingly my wife was more than happy for trans women to be in the same toilets and changing rooms as her from the outset of my “journey of discovery”, and I do enjoy being contrarian with her.”
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I don’t like the phrase ‘not on the side of trans people’ so perhaps this question did not initially apply to me but my stance has remained the same:
People can do whatever they like in my mind, be whatever they like, I’ve never been bigoted about any of this. I live in London. I’ve had many holos3xual mates, straight mates, black mates, brown mates, drag mates, druggy mates, work consumed mates, smart mates, dumb mates, white mates - everything.
But at a society level, caution is needed. We need to think these things through beyond the banal concern for a certain minority cause of the year.
My main concern surrounds children - education, hormone treatment, their exposure to online (non-professional) advocates of transitioning is worrisome to say the least. Did you hear the teacher from the school in Rye for example? Have you seen what the TikTok people are like, that teach children? Yeah, I’m not a fan of that.
comment by tliv7-0 (U11882)
posted 9 minutes ago
comment by Admin1 (U1)
posted about an hour ago
comment by FieldsofAnfieldRd (U18971)
posted 1 hour, 35 minutes ago
comment by Boris 'Inky’ Gibson (U5901)
posted 14 minutes ago
Angel Dust and Peks just don't mix.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Even though ‘Angel dust’ is the name Peks’ KGB handler uses for him.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Reckon their are at least 4 Russian stooge accounts on here. Some are mega obvious.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Genuine Russia-based propaganda accounts or MAGA types that have recently started liking Russia as contrarianism? Mad if resources are being used to target a niche football forum
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Oh there are absolutely a couple on here. I very occasionally ban them for going OTT but much prefer knowing them, as opposed to having to work out new accounts. The comments sections of most news sites and social media are littered with state sponsored misinformation.
comment by Admin1 (U1)
posted 21 minutes ago
comment by tliv7-0 (U11882)
posted 9 minutes ago
comment by Admin1 (U1)
posted about an hour ago
comment by FieldsofAnfieldRd (U18971)
posted 1 hour, 35 minutes ago
comment by Boris 'Inky’ Gibson (U5901)
posted 14 minutes ago
Angel Dust and Peks just don't mix.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Even though ‘Angel dust’ is the name Peks’ KGB handler uses for him.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Reckon their are at least 4 Russian stooge accounts on here. Some are mega obvious.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Genuine Russia-based propaganda accounts or MAGA types that have recently started liking Russia as contrarianism? Mad if resources are being used to target a niche football forum
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Oh there are absolutely a couple on here. I very occasionally ban them for going OTT but much prefer knowing them, as opposed to having to work out new accounts. The comments sections of most news sites and social media are littered with state sponsored misinformation.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Okay.
Witch regulars r Russia agents other than Peks?
Peks, You never amswered me.
Do you get paid in euros or robles?
comment by Sat Nav (U18243)
posted 33 minutes ago
comment by bmcl1987 - the M stands for meltdown 🤓 (U14177)
posted 1 hour, 57 minutes ago
comment by Sat Nav (U18243)
posted 16 hours, 36 minutes ago
comment by bmcl1987 - the M stands for meltdown 🤓 (U14177)
posted 1 hour, 13 minutes ago
comment by Sat Nav (U18243)
posted 5 minutes ago
“We tackle these behaviours I would suggest would be likely to have a far more profound impact on rates of assault than targeting trans people“
Again, this is not about targeting trans people or attacking trans people, but protecting women.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It is targeting trans people. Who have, for a long time, been using the toilet that aligns to their gender as opposed to their shex at birth. Why do you think it is not about targeting trans people, given the policy is “you trans people, you can’t urinate or defacate here”?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
If there is no increased danger with gender neutral toilets and such then why is it a problem to have male, female and neutral facilities? It’s not targeting, that’s victim linguistics, it’s categorising which is something we do throughout society in many, many ways.
If someone has no issue using the same facilities as any of the god knows how many genders, then they can use the gender neutral facilities. Men’s are for men and women’s are for women.
You might not agree with the safety aspect and your friends and/or spouses might not. But that doesn’t mean that there aren’t women who feel very uncomfortable (let alone children) undressing around someone who identifies as a woman but is still hairy and pardon my French but still has *ôck. It’s not bigotry, it’s not transphobia; lots of people just don’t want to share spaces that involves de-robing with people of the opposite s3x (gender is separate). It’s not that difficult to understand or respect that.
You can use the neutral toilets, your wife can, anyone can. Go for it. But if we’re going to purport to being truly inclusive, then let’s include those whom are not comfortable and want a separate space designated by s3x as we have generally had across the world for the last god knows how many years.
3 spaces MFN is clearly the best compromise to suit all.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I’m unsure of the practicalities of converting the hundreds of thousands or indeed millions of toilet setups in public spaces into your MFN proposal.
Now you pivoted to the general term “facilities” as opposed to “toilets”, so would ask that we stick with toilets. Does your position re “facilities” also carry over to toilets?
And it seems you have a position where if a trans person has had “bottom” surgery, you are fine with them being in the changing room of their gender, is this correct?
Feeling uncomfortable because a someone who is part of a marginalised minority is close to you, or undressing near you; that is what you are suggesting is not bigotry or transphobia. Now imagine that the minority was a gay man in the 80s, or a black man in the 50s? This “feeling uncomfortable” is exactly the type of politically correct positioning those who didn’t want black people near them, or gay people near them. We would call these homophobia and racism. Why not call a spade a spade and refer to it as transphobia?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
As Insert and I mentioned, the cost to do this, and the real estate would be very difficult indeed.
You keep framing things and twisting things mate, I’m starting to regret engaging.
It’s not fear of a marginalised group, it’s literally being a woman and being in a space where there are exposed male genitalia around. Same for little girls.
There is the additional concern that straight males will take advantage of these spaces and assault females. If there is no such risk, then there is no problem having a neutral toilet.
I use the term facilities because this issue doesn’t just affect toilets. It’s also relevant to changing rooms in shops, leisure centres, gyms etc etc. facilities is the most appropriate term in this regard.
If someone were to refuse to acknowledge someone post-op then this would be transphobia, let us not pretend that there isn’t a difference between a 6ft guy with a beard, makeup, a dress and male genitalia and someone that has gone through the whole operation.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
What do you feel I’m mis-framing?
We’re getting somewhere though. So I think what you’re saying is some women fear cis-het men assaulting them? And so as a result, trans women (and trans men?) are to be excluded from certain spaces. Is that correct? Or is it that some women fear trans women? And note when I say “some women” it is measurably “a minority of women”.
What I’m trying to get to is this; some women fear cis het men, and so we restrict trans women. Thus, the policy is absolutely “targeting” trans people, which was my point a few post up.
Or
Some women fear trans women? Which I would suggest points to straight up transphobia.
I separate out toilets as the ability to have somewhere where you can relieve yourself is more of an inalienable right (to me) than something like changing rooms in a sports centre. In short, you can avoid doing sport, but you can’t really avoid going to the toilet.
I think you’re differentiation is an interesting one, and thank you for clarifying that it is “bottom surgery” that you see as the transition point, pun very much intended!
The hair, height etc are actually alluding to what I mentioned previously, where cis women who don’t conform to societal norms regarding appearance are being harassed, by other women. Not by trans women mind, by cis women.
On your other post; you mentioned all the kinds of mates you have. Noticeably, not trans mates?
You and I agree in terms of tic tok folk like Andrew rare and the hugely negative impact people like him have on young people. Speaking to teachers, in what we used to call PSE, people like him are a much more significantly negatively harming young people than any trans person.
Sign in if you want to comment
Arguing w/strangers cause I'm lonely thread
Page 3502 of 4835
3503 | 3504 | 3505 | 3506 | 3507
posted on 1/7/23
comment by Oscar #TeamFury. It’s Coming Homeeeee! (U12980)
posted 3 minutes ago
Peks is a bit of a brainwashed loony but so are you Rob to be fair
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Saying ‘to be fair’ after a sentence doesn’t make it true.
Most people on here put you in the same basket as Peks which is a scary place to be.
posted on 1/7/23
Oscy
Good listen this: 👇
https://twitter.com/TuckerCarlson/status/1673856877841764352
posted on 1/7/23
https://twitter.com/JeffreyTowson/status/1673863431181713409/photo/1
posted on 1/7/23
The absolute state of 'Murica 👇
"Tucker Carlson: “A whistleblower produces a text message SHOWING that Joe Biden was in the room with his son when his son was selling influence to an enemy power—the Chinese government.
And ABC’s take on it? ‘Joe Biden is a father first—take it or leave it!’ What accounts for a response like that? Well, that’s the way you talk when you’ve got nothing to fear from an upcoming presidential election. You don’t even bother to think of an excuse for your candidate because you don’t need to. Your country has electronic voting machines!
Joe Biden got 81,282,916 votes in 2020, and you’re pretty sure he can do it again; in fact, you know he can. You’re not worried.”
posted on 1/7/23
Angel Dust and Peks just don't mix.
posted on 1/7/23
comment by Boris 'Inky’ Gibson (U5901)
posted 14 minutes ago
Angel Dust and Peks just don't mix.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Even though ‘Angel dust’ is the name Peks’ KGB handler uses for him.
posted on 1/7/23
P-p-p-pick up a Pekov
posted on 1/7/23
comment by Robb (Steve) Smith (U22716)
posted 1 hour, 43 minutes ago
comment by Oscar #TeamFury. It’s Coming Homeeeee! (U12980)
posted 3 minutes ago
Peks is a bit of a brainwashed loony but so are you Rob to be fair
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Saying ‘to be fair’ after a sentence doesn’t make it true.
Most people on here put you in the same basket as Peks which is a scary place to be.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Ironic given the majority of the main board think you’re a massive crank and a laughing stock
posted on 1/7/23
comment by Pekov - Supreme Commander (U6618)
posted 1 hour, 4 minutes ago
Oscy
Good listen this: 👇
https://twitter.com/TuckerCarlson/status/1673856877841764352
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Tucker’s a khunt mate he supports Russia
posted on 1/7/23
comment by Sat Nav (U18243)
posted 16 hours, 36 minutes ago
comment by bmcl1987 - the M stands for meltdown 🤓 (U14177)
posted 1 hour, 13 minutes ago
comment by Sat Nav (U18243)
posted 5 minutes ago
“We tackle these behaviours I would suggest would be likely to have a far more profound impact on rates of assault than targeting trans people“
Again, this is not about targeting trans people or attacking trans people, but protecting women.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It is targeting trans people. Who have, for a long time, been using the toilet that aligns to their gender as opposed to their shex at birth. Why do you think it is not about targeting trans people, given the policy is “you trans people, you can’t urinate or defacate here”?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
If there is no increased danger with gender neutral toilets and such then why is it a problem to have male, female and neutral facilities? It’s not targeting, that’s victim linguistics, it’s categorising which is something we do throughout society in many, many ways.
If someone has no issue using the same facilities as any of the god knows how many genders, then they can use the gender neutral facilities. Men’s are for men and women’s are for women.
You might not agree with the safety aspect and your friends and/or spouses might not. But that doesn’t mean that there aren’t women who feel very uncomfortable (let alone children) undressing around someone who identifies as a woman but is still hairy and pardon my French but still has *ôck. It’s not bigotry, it’s not transphobia; lots of people just don’t want to share spaces that involves de-robing with people of the opposite s3x (gender is separate). It’s not that difficult to understand or respect that.
You can use the neutral toilets, your wife can, anyone can. Go for it. But if we’re going to purport to being truly inclusive, then let’s include those whom are not comfortable and want a separate space designated by s3x as we have generally had across the world for the last god knows how many years.
3 spaces MFN is clearly the best compromise to suit all.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I’m unsure of the practicalities of converting the hundreds of thousands or indeed millions of toilet setups in public spaces into your MFN proposal.
Now you pivoted to the general term “facilities” as opposed to “toilets”, so would ask that we stick with toilets. Does your position re “facilities” also carry over to toilets?
And it seems you have a position where if a trans person has had “bottom” surgery, you are fine with them being in the changing room of their gender, is this correct?
Feeling uncomfortable because a someone who is part of a marginalised minority is close to you, or undressing near you; that is what you are suggesting is not bigotry or transphobia. Now imagine that the minority was a gay man in the 80s, or a black man in the 50s? This “feeling uncomfortable” is exactly the type of politically correct positioning those who didn’t want black people near them, or gay people near them. We would call these homophobia and racism. Why not call a spade a spade and refer to it as transphobia?
posted on 1/7/23
comment by Oscar #TeamFury. It’s Coming Homeeeee! (U12980)
posted 7 minutes ago
comment by Robb (Steve) Smith (U22716)
posted 1 hour, 43 minutes ago
comment by Oscar #TeamFury. It’s Coming Homeeeee! (U12980)
posted 3 minutes ago
Peks is a bit of a brainwashed loony but so are you Rob to be fair
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Saying ‘to be fair’ after a sentence doesn’t make it true.
Most people on here put you in the same basket as Peks which is a scary place to be.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Ironic given the majority of the main board think you’re a massive crank and a laughing stock
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Literally no one does but you do you boo.
posted on 1/7/23
Oh and Satters, was keen to understand your journey to the position you hold re trans people? Per below from page 3500
“For those who are not on the side of trans people, I would be interested in understanding of how they established their position. In the interests of transparency I was very “on the fence” regarding trans people for a long time, up until around 2021. But I did research, I listened online and in person to multiple perspectives, including speaking directly with friends of Jo Rowling, and landed in my considered position as of today. Interestingly my wife was more than happy for trans women to be in the same toilets and changing rooms as her from the outset of my “journey of discovery”, and I do enjoy being contrarian with her.”
posted on 1/7/23
comment by FieldsofAnfieldRd (U18971)
posted 1 hour, 35 minutes ago
comment by Boris 'Inky’ Gibson (U5901)
posted 14 minutes ago
Angel Dust and Peks just don't mix.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Even though ‘Angel dust’ is the name Peks’ KGB handler uses for him.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Reckon their are at least 4 Russian stooge accounts on here. Some are mega obvious.
posted on 1/7/23
comment by Pekov - Supreme Commander (U6618)
posted 2 hours, 22 minutes ago
The absolute state of 'Murica👇
"Tucker Carlson: “A whistleblower produces a text message SHOWING that Joe Biden was in the room with his son when his son was selling influence to an enemy power—the Chinese government.
And ABC’s take on it? ‘Joe Biden is a father first—take it or leave it!’ What accounts for a response like that? Well, that’s the way you talk when you’ve got nothing to fear from an upcoming presidential election. You don’t even bother to think of an excuse for your candidate because you don’t need to. Your country has electronic voting machines!
Joe Biden got 81,282,916 votes in 2020, and you’re pretty sure he can do it again; in fact, you know he can. You’re not worried.”
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Do u ever read whut u rite?
posted on 1/7/23
comment by Admin1 (U1)
posted 29 minutes ago
comment by FieldsofAnfieldRd (U18971)
posted 1 hour, 35 minutes ago
comment by Boris 'Inky’ Gibson (U5901)
posted 14 minutes ago
Angel Dust and Peks just don't mix.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Even though ‘Angel dust’ is the name Peks’ KGB handler uses for him.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Reckon their are at least 4 Russian stooge accounts on here. Some are mega obvious.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Two are blindingly obvious. The other two (plus) must be more sophisticated, or I haven’t encountered them.
It amazes me that the very obvious ones persist, given that they’re called out as being Russian stooges just about every time they post, and the majority of regular posters recognise them as being such.
Surely when you’re so craaap at this particular job, you just end up being counterproductive to the cause?
Hey FSB handlers, if you’re out there: You have some ‘retraining’ to do with a few of your lads
posted on 1/7/23
comment by bmcl1987 - the M stands for meltdown 🤓 (U14177)
posted 1 hour, 50 minutes ago
comment by Sat Nav (U18243)
posted 16 hours, 36 minutes ago
comment by bmcl1987 - the M stands for meltdown 🤓 (U14177)
posted 1 hour, 13 minutes ago
comment by Sat Nav (U18243)
posted 5 minutes ago
“We tackle these behaviours I would suggest would be likely to have a far more profound impact on rates of assault than targeting trans people“
Again, this is not about targeting trans people or attacking trans people, but protecting women.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It is targeting trans people. Who have, for a long time, been using the toilet that aligns to their gender as opposed to their shex at birth. Why do you think it is not about targeting trans people, given the policy is “you trans people, you can’t urinate or defacate here”?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
If there is no increased danger with gender neutral toilets and such then why is it a problem to have male, female and neutral facilities? It’s not targeting, that’s victim linguistics, it’s categorising which is something we do throughout society in many, many ways.
If someone has no issue using the same facilities as any of the god knows how many genders, then they can use the gender neutral facilities. Men’s are for men and women’s are for women.
You might not agree with the safety aspect and your friends and/or spouses might not. But that doesn’t mean that there aren’t women who feel very uncomfortable (let alone children) undressing around someone who identifies as a woman but is still hairy and pardon my French but still has *ôck. It’s not bigotry, it’s not transphobia; lots of people just don’t want to share spaces that involves de-robing with people of the opposite s3x (gender is separate). It’s not that difficult to understand or respect that.
You can use the neutral toilets, your wife can, anyone can. Go for it. But if we’re going to purport to being truly inclusive, then let’s include those whom are not comfortable and want a separate space designated by s3x as we have generally had across the world for the last god knows how many years.
3 spaces MFN is clearly the best compromise to suit all.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I’m unsure of the practicalities of converting the hundreds of thousands or indeed millions of toilet setups in public spaces into your MFN proposal.
Now you pivoted to the general term “facilities” as opposed to “toilets”, so would ask that we stick with toilets. Does your position re “facilities” also carry over to toilets?
And it seems you have a position where if a trans person has had “bottom” surgery, you are fine with them being in the changing room of their gender, is this correct?
Feeling uncomfortable because a someone who is part of a marginalised minority is close to you, or undressing near you; that is what you are suggesting is not bigotry or transphobia. Now imagine that the minority was a gay man in the 80s, or a black man in the 50s? This “feeling uncomfortable” is exactly the type of politically correct positioning those who didn’t want black people near them, or gay people near them. We would call these homophobia and racism. Why not call a spade a spade and refer to it as transphobia?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Well said, young man.
posted on 1/7/23
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
posted on 1/7/23
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
posted on 1/7/23
comment by bmcl1987 - the M stands for meltdown 🤓 (U14177)
posted 1 hour, 57 minutes ago
comment by Sat Nav (U18243)
posted 16 hours, 36 minutes ago
comment by bmcl1987 - the M stands for meltdown 🤓 (U14177)
posted 1 hour, 13 minutes ago
comment by Sat Nav (U18243)
posted 5 minutes ago
“We tackle these behaviours I would suggest would be likely to have a far more profound impact on rates of assault than targeting trans people“
Again, this is not about targeting trans people or attacking trans people, but protecting women.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It is targeting trans people. Who have, for a long time, been using the toilet that aligns to their gender as opposed to their shex at birth. Why do you think it is not about targeting trans people, given the policy is “you trans people, you can’t urinate or defacate here”?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
If there is no increased danger with gender neutral toilets and such then why is it a problem to have male, female and neutral facilities? It’s not targeting, that’s victim linguistics, it’s categorising which is something we do throughout society in many, many ways.
If someone has no issue using the same facilities as any of the god knows how many genders, then they can use the gender neutral facilities. Men’s are for men and women’s are for women.
You might not agree with the safety aspect and your friends and/or spouses might not. But that doesn’t mean that there aren’t women who feel very uncomfortable (let alone children) undressing around someone who identifies as a woman but is still hairy and pardon my French but still has *ôck. It’s not bigotry, it’s not transphobia; lots of people just don’t want to share spaces that involves de-robing with people of the opposite s3x (gender is separate). It’s not that difficult to understand or respect that.
You can use the neutral toilets, your wife can, anyone can. Go for it. But if we’re going to purport to being truly inclusive, then let’s include those whom are not comfortable and want a separate space designated by s3x as we have generally had across the world for the last god knows how many years.
3 spaces MFN is clearly the best compromise to suit all.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I’m unsure of the practicalities of converting the hundreds of thousands or indeed millions of toilet setups in public spaces into your MFN proposal.
Now you pivoted to the general term “facilities” as opposed to “toilets”, so would ask that we stick with toilets. Does your position re “facilities” also carry over to toilets?
And it seems you have a position where if a trans person has had “bottom” surgery, you are fine with them being in the changing room of their gender, is this correct?
Feeling uncomfortable because a someone who is part of a marginalised minority is close to you, or undressing near you; that is what you are suggesting is not bigotry or transphobia. Now imagine that the minority was a gay man in the 80s, or a black man in the 50s? This “feeling uncomfortable” is exactly the type of politically correct positioning those who didn’t want black people near them, or gay people near them. We would call these homophobia and racism. Why not call a spade a spade and refer to it as transphobia?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
As Insert and I mentioned, the cost to do this, and the real estate would be very difficult indeed.
You keep framing things and twisting things mate, I’m starting to regret engaging.
It’s not fear of a marginalised group, it’s literally being a woman and being in a space where there are exposed male genitalia around. Same for little girls.
There is the additional concern that straight males will take advantage of these spaces and assault females. If there is no such risk, then there is no problem having a neutral toilet.
I use the term facilities because this issue doesn’t just affect toilets. It’s also relevant to changing rooms in shops, leisure centres, gyms etc etc. facilities is the most appropriate term in this regard.
If someone were to refuse to acknowledge someone post-op then this would be transphobia, let us not pretend that there isn’t a difference between a 6ft guy with a beard, makeup, a dress and male genitalia and someone that has gone through the whole operation.
posted on 1/7/23
comment by bmcl1987 - the M stands for meltdown 🤓 (U14177)
posted 1 hour, 59 minutes ago
Oh and Satters, was keen to understand your journey to the position you hold re trans people? Per below from page 3500
“For those who are not on the side of trans people, I would be interested in understanding of how they established their position. In the interests of transparency I was very “on the fence” regarding trans people for a long time, up until around 2021. But I did research, I listened online and in person to multiple perspectives, including speaking directly with friends of Jo Rowling, and landed in my considered position as of today. Interestingly my wife was more than happy for trans women to be in the same toilets and changing rooms as her from the outset of my “journey of discovery”, and I do enjoy being contrarian with her.”
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I don’t like the phrase ‘not on the side of trans people’ so perhaps this question did not initially apply to me but my stance has remained the same:
People can do whatever they like in my mind, be whatever they like, I’ve never been bigoted about any of this. I live in London. I’ve had many holos3xual mates, straight mates, black mates, brown mates, drag mates, druggy mates, work consumed mates, smart mates, dumb mates, white mates - everything.
But at a society level, caution is needed. We need to think these things through beyond the banal concern for a certain minority cause of the year.
My main concern surrounds children - education, hormone treatment, their exposure to online (non-professional) advocates of transitioning is worrisome to say the least. Did you hear the teacher from the school in Rye for example? Have you seen what the TikTok people are like, that teach children? Yeah, I’m not a fan of that.
posted on 1/7/23
comment by tliv7-0 (U11882)
posted 9 minutes ago
comment by Admin1 (U1)
posted about an hour ago
comment by FieldsofAnfieldRd (U18971)
posted 1 hour, 35 minutes ago
comment by Boris 'Inky’ Gibson (U5901)
posted 14 minutes ago
Angel Dust and Peks just don't mix.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Even though ‘Angel dust’ is the name Peks’ KGB handler uses for him.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Reckon their are at least 4 Russian stooge accounts on here. Some are mega obvious.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Genuine Russia-based propaganda accounts or MAGA types that have recently started liking Russia as contrarianism? Mad if resources are being used to target a niche football forum
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Oh there are absolutely a couple on here. I very occasionally ban them for going OTT but much prefer knowing them, as opposed to having to work out new accounts. The comments sections of most news sites and social media are littered with state sponsored misinformation.
posted on 1/7/23
comment by Admin1 (U1)
posted 21 minutes ago
comment by tliv7-0 (U11882)
posted 9 minutes ago
comment by Admin1 (U1)
posted about an hour ago
comment by FieldsofAnfieldRd (U18971)
posted 1 hour, 35 minutes ago
comment by Boris 'Inky’ Gibson (U5901)
posted 14 minutes ago
Angel Dust and Peks just don't mix.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Even though ‘Angel dust’ is the name Peks’ KGB handler uses for him.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Reckon their are at least 4 Russian stooge accounts on here. Some are mega obvious.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Genuine Russia-based propaganda accounts or MAGA types that have recently started liking Russia as contrarianism? Mad if resources are being used to target a niche football forum
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Oh there are absolutely a couple on here. I very occasionally ban them for going OTT but much prefer knowing them, as opposed to having to work out new accounts. The comments sections of most news sites and social media are littered with state sponsored misinformation.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Okay.
posted on 1/7/23
Witch regulars r Russia agents other than Peks?
posted on 1/7/23
Peks, You never amswered me.
Do you get paid in euros or robles?
posted on 1/7/23
comment by Sat Nav (U18243)
posted 33 minutes ago
comment by bmcl1987 - the M stands for meltdown 🤓 (U14177)
posted 1 hour, 57 minutes ago
comment by Sat Nav (U18243)
posted 16 hours, 36 minutes ago
comment by bmcl1987 - the M stands for meltdown 🤓 (U14177)
posted 1 hour, 13 minutes ago
comment by Sat Nav (U18243)
posted 5 minutes ago
“We tackle these behaviours I would suggest would be likely to have a far more profound impact on rates of assault than targeting trans people“
Again, this is not about targeting trans people or attacking trans people, but protecting women.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It is targeting trans people. Who have, for a long time, been using the toilet that aligns to their gender as opposed to their shex at birth. Why do you think it is not about targeting trans people, given the policy is “you trans people, you can’t urinate or defacate here”?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
If there is no increased danger with gender neutral toilets and such then why is it a problem to have male, female and neutral facilities? It’s not targeting, that’s victim linguistics, it’s categorising which is something we do throughout society in many, many ways.
If someone has no issue using the same facilities as any of the god knows how many genders, then they can use the gender neutral facilities. Men’s are for men and women’s are for women.
You might not agree with the safety aspect and your friends and/or spouses might not. But that doesn’t mean that there aren’t women who feel very uncomfortable (let alone children) undressing around someone who identifies as a woman but is still hairy and pardon my French but still has *ôck. It’s not bigotry, it’s not transphobia; lots of people just don’t want to share spaces that involves de-robing with people of the opposite s3x (gender is separate). It’s not that difficult to understand or respect that.
You can use the neutral toilets, your wife can, anyone can. Go for it. But if we’re going to purport to being truly inclusive, then let’s include those whom are not comfortable and want a separate space designated by s3x as we have generally had across the world for the last god knows how many years.
3 spaces MFN is clearly the best compromise to suit all.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I’m unsure of the practicalities of converting the hundreds of thousands or indeed millions of toilet setups in public spaces into your MFN proposal.
Now you pivoted to the general term “facilities” as opposed to “toilets”, so would ask that we stick with toilets. Does your position re “facilities” also carry over to toilets?
And it seems you have a position where if a trans person has had “bottom” surgery, you are fine with them being in the changing room of their gender, is this correct?
Feeling uncomfortable because a someone who is part of a marginalised minority is close to you, or undressing near you; that is what you are suggesting is not bigotry or transphobia. Now imagine that the minority was a gay man in the 80s, or a black man in the 50s? This “feeling uncomfortable” is exactly the type of politically correct positioning those who didn’t want black people near them, or gay people near them. We would call these homophobia and racism. Why not call a spade a spade and refer to it as transphobia?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
As Insert and I mentioned, the cost to do this, and the real estate would be very difficult indeed.
You keep framing things and twisting things mate, I’m starting to regret engaging.
It’s not fear of a marginalised group, it’s literally being a woman and being in a space where there are exposed male genitalia around. Same for little girls.
There is the additional concern that straight males will take advantage of these spaces and assault females. If there is no such risk, then there is no problem having a neutral toilet.
I use the term facilities because this issue doesn’t just affect toilets. It’s also relevant to changing rooms in shops, leisure centres, gyms etc etc. facilities is the most appropriate term in this regard.
If someone were to refuse to acknowledge someone post-op then this would be transphobia, let us not pretend that there isn’t a difference between a 6ft guy with a beard, makeup, a dress and male genitalia and someone that has gone through the whole operation.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
What do you feel I’m mis-framing?
We’re getting somewhere though. So I think what you’re saying is some women fear cis-het men assaulting them? And so as a result, trans women (and trans men?) are to be excluded from certain spaces. Is that correct? Or is it that some women fear trans women? And note when I say “some women” it is measurably “a minority of women”.
What I’m trying to get to is this; some women fear cis het men, and so we restrict trans women. Thus, the policy is absolutely “targeting” trans people, which was my point a few post up.
Or
Some women fear trans women? Which I would suggest points to straight up transphobia.
I separate out toilets as the ability to have somewhere where you can relieve yourself is more of an inalienable right (to me) than something like changing rooms in a sports centre. In short, you can avoid doing sport, but you can’t really avoid going to the toilet.
I think you’re differentiation is an interesting one, and thank you for clarifying that it is “bottom surgery” that you see as the transition point, pun very much intended!
The hair, height etc are actually alluding to what I mentioned previously, where cis women who don’t conform to societal norms regarding appearance are being harassed, by other women. Not by trans women mind, by cis women.
On your other post; you mentioned all the kinds of mates you have. Noticeably, not trans mates?
You and I agree in terms of tic tok folk like Andrew rare and the hugely negative impact people like him have on young people. Speaking to teachers, in what we used to call PSE, people like him are a much more significantly negatively harming young people than any trans person.
Page 3502 of 4835
3503 | 3504 | 3505 | 3506 | 3507