That Trans Thread

[Charlie Boy]

Ironically, the very “rules” you found restrictive are now enforced with far greater zeal by ideologues who believe a preference for trucks over tiaras indicates an ontological mismatch.

How can anyone be so stupid as to claim that allowing people to freely identify their gender imposes rules and restrictions on them? It's literally quite the opposite.

Seriously, you are either an idiot or a troll.

A curious formulation—“How can anyone be so stupid…”—which, while certainly dramatic, is regrettably not an argument. It suggests emotional urgency rather than intellectual clarity. One might suggest that if your case were as self-evident as claimed, invective wouldn’t be necessary.

To your assertion: that gender self-identification imposes no rules or restrictions—you’ve misunderstood, or perhaps conveniently ignored, the operative critique.

No, the issue is not with adults choosing to identify how they wish. The concern is that others are now obliged—by policy, law, or social pressure—to participate in those identifications regardless of their own reasoned beliefs. Misgendering, even inadvertently, can cost someone their job. Children are being transitioned without full psychological assessment, while teachers and parents are sometimes legally or professionally penalised for raising doubts or suggesting caution.

Freedom to identify oneself is one thing. Compelled affirmation by others, under threat of sanction, is quite another. That’s where “rules and restrictions” enter—subtly but forcefully. When expressing biological facts is rebranded as “hate speech,” one might reasonably conclude that the terrain has shifted.

So, yes—gender self-identification may feel like liberation to some. But for many others, it arrives packaged with expectations, enforcement, and penalties. One person’s freedom cannot hinge on another’s compelled agreement.

Would you care to revisit your claim with that in mind—or would you prefer to continue debating shadows of your own invention?

[Fake Messiah]

A curious formulation—“How can anyone be so stupid…”—which, while certainly dramatic

Maybe you are not stupid but just full of shit - is there a difference?

Like this nonsense:

Children are being transitioned without full psychological assessment, while teachers and parents are sometimes legally or professionally penalised for raising doubts or suggesting caution.

Again, those are just blatant lies, like the rest of your post.

[Nay_Sayer]

Again, Is Charlie Boy your legal name?

*Offers, what do Brits like....Tasty crisps

[Charlie Boy]

Oh dear, he dreaded tomboy label. I wonder—was the offense truly in the labeling, or in the retrospective interpretation of it?

After all, the term tomboy never denied biology; quite the opposite—it acknowledged a girl acting outside expected norms without claiming she wasn’t a girl. Contrast that with today’s curious fashion of insisting that certain behaviors must mean something about one’s identity, or even one’s sex.

Ironically, the very “rules” you found restrictive are now enforced with far greater zeal by ideologues who believe a preference for trucks over tiaras indicates an ontological mismatch. One might ask: is the modern view truly more liberating—or simply more dogmatic in different clothing?

Of course, I welcome your thoughts—assuming they haven’t been pre-approved by the Gender Compliance Committee.

You certainly are an unpleasant entity.

I will not judge someone who feels that they are misgendered because I have never thought those thoughts or felt those feelings.  

I'm just saying that it should not be up to everyone else to decide how a person wants to present themselves, so long as they aren't hurting anyone else.  And sensibilities being hurt don't count.

You spend too much time worrying about things that are not your business.

Unpleasant? Perhaps. But one imagines you’d prefer honesty cloaked in courtesy to false agreement wrapped in smiles.

You say you don’t judge those who feel misgendered—commendable. Nor did I suggest otherwise. The point at hand is not whether someone may present themselves however they wish. Of course they may. The concern arises when others are compelled—legally, professionally, or socially—to affirm such identities under threat of consequence, regardless of belief or context.

Your position, respectfully, seems to conflate personal liberty with public obligation. I’ve never suggested anyone should dictate how another presents themselves. I’ve simply questioned whether everyone else must participate in that presentation, particularly when doing so may conflict with their reason, speech, or conscience.

As for your suggestion that I “spend too much time worrying about things that are not my business”—well, I might say the same of those who demand ideological conformity from strangers in schools, workplaces, and institutions. If speech is to be policed, then yes—it becomes everyone’s business.

Still, I appreciate your candour. Disagreement is no sin; it’s the oxygen of discourse. The moment it ceases to be permitted—or politely endured—we’ve lost something far more precious than comfort.

Shall we leave it there, or would you prefer to continue the dance?

[arewethereyet]

Dance implies working together in harmony.  Of course, it usually also means one leads and the other follows.

I'll pass.

[Charlie Boy]

A curious formulation—“How can anyone be so stupid…”—which, while certainly dramatic

Maybe you are not stupid but just full of shit - is there a difference?

Like this nonsense:

Children are being transitioned without full psychological assessment, while teachers and parents are sometimes legally or professionally penalised for raising doubts or suggesting caution.

Again, those are just blatant lies, like the rest of your post.

One does admire your consistency—if not in argumentation, then at least in tone. Oscillating between crude insult and categorical denial is an unusual debating strategy, but if theatrical bravado is all one has left, one makes do, I suppose.

You claim my statement—“Children are being transitioned without full psychological assessment, and dissent is professionally penalised”—is a “blatant lie.” Let's review, briefly, the real world.

Minimal psychological assessment before transitioning : The Cass Review—commissioned by NHS England to scrutinise its Gender Identity Development Service—found that gender services “were operating without adequate clinical evidence” and that the affirmative care pathway often sidestepped comprehensive psychological evaluation, even though mental health comorbidities were prevalent

Administrator Notice
Link removed per 30/30 rule.

In plain English, liking dolls over trucks may indeed be escalated to gender transition without a sufficiently robust mental-health check.

Professionals penalised for expressing caution : Take the case of Dr Jillian Spencer, a Queensland psychiatrist suspended after voicing concerns that underlying issues like autism or anxiety were being overlooked in the rush to affirm gender identity 

Administrator Notice
see above

Clearly, this is not hypothetical—it’s happening, with real consequences for real clinicians.

Now, if the above still qualifies as “just full of shit,” then one is left wondering—do facts offend you, or merely the inconvenience they pose to your ideological certainties?

You may not agree with the evidence, but to deny it exists is a form of intellectual sloth. Or worse, intentional dishonesty disguised as moral outrage. Either way, it’s not a good look.

If you're prepared to return to the realm of reason, I welcome it. But if you intend to persist with tantrums dressed up as debate, you’ll find I remain serenely unmoved.

[Charlie Boy]

Dance implies working together in harmony.  Of course, it usually also means one leads and the other follows.

I'll pass.

Oooh, how refreshingly candid. I quite understand—dancing does require rhythm, coordination, and, alas, a willingness to follow the steps.

Still, I appreciate your brief appearance on the floor. Not all are suited to the tempo of reasoned debate, and there’s no shame in bowing out when the music proves too intricate.

Do take care. The spectators, I’m sure, enjoyed the interlude. Perhaps tree climbing will provide you with the stimulation you seek.

[Alan V]

Do take care. The spectators, I’m sure, enjoyed the interlude. Perhaps tree climbing will provide you with the stimulation you seek.

Troll.

[arewethereyet]

Dance implies working together in harmony.  Of course, it usually also means one leads and the other follows.

I'll pass.

Oooh, how refreshingly candid. I quite understand—dancing does require rhythm, coordination, and, alas, a willingness to follow the steps.

Still, I appreciate your brief appearance on the floor. Not all are suited to the tempo of reasoned debate, and there’s no shame in bowing out when the music proves too intricate.

Do take care. The spectators, I’m sure, enjoyed the interlude. Perhaps tree climbing will provide you with the stimulation you seek.

Unfortunately, snarkiness is not yet against the rules.  More's the pity...I'm in the mood to clip some wings...and have the ability to do it.

[Charlie Boy]

Do take care. The spectators, I’m sure, enjoyed the interlude. Perhaps tree climbing will provide you with the stimulation you seek.

Troll.

Hmmm, monosyllabic grunts. Interesting debating tactic. Do let me know how that works out for you.