It's a great list. Just one wish (late): that the last question didn't repeat the common myth that children getting drawn into transgenderism are ONLY those who'd grow up to be gay. Trans is sucking in all sorts. People need to know that or they'll fail to be on the lookout on behalf of all sorts.
Men like him always come stomping into the argument, get burned by logic and then claim they just don't understand. Then why are you arrogant enough to wade in in the first place?!
And as usual he uses emotive words like "danger". No one is saying all trans people are a danger. Some are. Dangerous people can exploit self-ID, WOMEN DESERVE SINGLE SEX SPACES.
Well, it's so much easier to campaign against people if you twist everthing that comes out of their mouths. And if you have no idea what it's about to begin with, you don't even have to feel guilty about it.
You know what? Many of us have spouted "TWAW" in the past, but in the last 2 years, loads of us have gone "hmm, maybe it's not as simple as that. I should probably read a bit more into this before shouting my opinion." I'd be mortified if I was as well known as Robin Ince, known as being a bit sciencey (maybe even doing a series of shows about it) and I just didn't bother to look into the issues but offered an opinion on it anyway.
Or maybe he has looked into it and just thought "ok, I could say nothing and if asked just fudge something non-committal" But, no, what he actually did is spunk his shitty opinions (which he definitely doesn't believe) over Twitter.
When the tide turns Robin, just know - we see you.
Jeez, every day I come that bit closer to having a rage induced stroke.
I think ultimately you just have to stick with the fact that being trans is a pretence. If it makes you happy fine. But no one else has to go along with it. Sex based rules and exclusions matter. Life in its very essence is discriminatory. It’s about choosing between things. The above riposte is excellent. But how have we got to this point? Where stating biological fact is now protected speech? The only thing anyone should be saying to these people is that they are at best mid guided fools or nasty insincere (Owen Jones) evil people. Mermaids being the best example. Turning boys into eunuchs and girls into facsimiles of men. Butchery. With people making a profit from it. They should be hanging their heads in shame. This is all a lie. Stick with the primary argument. There is no such thing as cis. Sex is immutable. If you want to adopt the characteristics of the opposite sex that you were born to. Go for it. You may get some gyp for it and some hate. Welcome to life. And certain people may discriminate against you .so what. You want to live in a multicultural world? Embrace the discord that’s going to be. Become insensitive. Stop dictating to others what they must think or feel. And that’s were the whole trans activism things becomes so toxic. It’s like any lie. Like socialism / communism. it’s a pretence. It doesn’t work. So the movement becomes everything. It’s all about control when you are sustaining a pretence. Hence why it is very dangerous. Women are why we are all here. Unless you prescribe to some brave new world fantasy. Embrace reality. If you’re pushing this bullshit stay away from the vulnerable and definitely stay away from children. Trans women don’t exist as women they are men. End of. And visa versa. And as for non binary. Who the fuck cares outside of their friendship family / groups about narcissists. This is where the middle class new left goes to die, hopefully and metaphorically, in a steaming pyre of tangled identity politics. The contempt I have for these people is beyond what I could or can legally say. And as for Owen Jones. Someone who actually scares me for the murderous person I could see him being as a commissar if he ever gained power.
When Governments reach into our private lives effecting and legislating our homes, income, sexuality, children and well-being based on unscientific Mumbo jumbo we are all in big trouble.Freedom, choice and rationality gone. Less is more from them thanks.
It's not THAT simple either. You are inserting social roles here. Women have the capacity to give birth, and only they do. That doesn't mean that they HAVE to. And while men are biologically stronger, calling them "there to protect the family" is biologising a social role they have or had in many - but not all - societies. We should be careful to never mix these things up. It's exactly what gender ideologues do, in spite of claiming the opposite.
I don't know about that. If a woman is not there to give birth, to mother than what is the definition of a woman in your eyes? This social roles sounds a bit like what gender ideologues say. Sex is binary. Is biology.
A woman has XX chromosomes. A man has XY chromosomes. Having an extra chromosome eg XXY causes Klinefelter’s syndrome. Some people are classed as intersex. A woman (XX) does not have to be a mother or caregiver. A man (XY) can be a caregiver. Many men these days are at home fathers as their wives earn more. What they cannot be is biologically the opposite sex. A natal woman cannot be a man. A natal man cannot be a woman.
Well like we can't see chromosomes. So I don't see the point in defining them as such. We've been able to define man and woman before we even knew chromosomes existed.
Sex is. What is expected form us in society based on our sex is not. In other words: Women have a body capable of becoming pregnant and giving birth. That is biology. If, how and when they decide to habe a baby and what role they place once the child has been weened - that is the social side. Those are two different things, even though they are inseparably linked. We must stress this point over and over and over again.
He's been boiling my piss for quite a while now. He's taken criticism of jose long personally, and that was due to her uncritical support of Mermaids. Which she has subsequently tried to erase all trace of!
One of his Infinite Monkey Cage episodes is about the sexes, why there are only 2, and discussions around that.
I wonder will he try to remove it, or will he be caught by his new 'target audience '? Not really toeing the line, Robin!
That may well be the case. Personally, I think it's more about the desire to be respected by your immediate surroundings and the thrill you get at helping to initiate something you deem new and progressive - in other words: to be part of a "new time". We shouldn't underestimate how intoxicating this is to many people.
Yes social engineering and oppression of the very worst type. They need to get back in line and stick to the mandate they do have. Security, borders, provision of services and equal national well-being without prejudice and based on long term civilised law and principles. That’s about it.
I think the aim is to do away with the titles. It will be first-name terms, ostensibly to recognise that children are small people, but actually as a way to weaken the parent-child bond. Only professionals such as teachers will have special forms of address, thus making them the key authority figures in the child's life.
LOL. As if the two things are mutually exclusive. That being suspicious of the incompetent, malicious, destructive and duplicitous government (reasonably accurate description) inevitably means looking favourably upon Stonewall (even though they also happen to be malicious, destructive and duplicitous, although perhaps not incompetent if viewed through a lens where success is measured in ability to coerce or dupe institutions and authorities into ratifying malicious,destructive and duplicitous policy.)
This is pretty obviously a feeble piece of shabby showmanship from a guy who makes a living from talking in public and therefore needs to be sure to curry favour from the BBC especially, to secure future contracts, and who titillates by darkly referring to a 'someone' who whilst being a hero of feminism also attacks and abuses feminists. Wow! - aren't we intrigued? Who could this mystery someone be?
Nope. We couldn't care less. The only effect it will have is being more likely to move on to the next programme or show if the name Robin Ince is listed in the credits.
I’m bookmarking this because the list of questions will serve us all well. Thank you
Same
same here!
It's a great list. Just one wish (late): that the last question didn't repeat the common myth that children getting drawn into transgenderism are ONLY those who'd grow up to be gay. Trans is sucking in all sorts. People need to know that or they'll fail to be on the lookout on behalf of all sorts.
Very good point.
Me too!
Men like him always come stomping into the argument, get burned by logic and then claim they just don't understand. Then why are you arrogant enough to wade in in the first place?!
And as usual he uses emotive words like "danger". No one is saying all trans people are a danger. Some are. Dangerous people can exploit self-ID, WOMEN DESERVE SINGLE SEX SPACES.
Tired of these men.
Well, it's so much easier to campaign against people if you twist everthing that comes out of their mouths. And if you have no idea what it's about to begin with, you don't even have to feel guilty about it.
Missed the L off his surname
👏🏽👏🏽👏🏽👏🏽
You know what? Many of us have spouted "TWAW" in the past, but in the last 2 years, loads of us have gone "hmm, maybe it's not as simple as that. I should probably read a bit more into this before shouting my opinion." I'd be mortified if I was as well known as Robin Ince, known as being a bit sciencey (maybe even doing a series of shows about it) and I just didn't bother to look into the issues but offered an opinion on it anyway.
Or maybe he has looked into it and just thought "ok, I could say nothing and if asked just fudge something non-committal" But, no, what he actually did is spunk his shitty opinions (which he definitely doesn't believe) over Twitter.
When the tide turns Robin, just know - we see you.
Jeez, every day I come that bit closer to having a rage induced stroke.
I think ultimately you just have to stick with the fact that being trans is a pretence. If it makes you happy fine. But no one else has to go along with it. Sex based rules and exclusions matter. Life in its very essence is discriminatory. It’s about choosing between things. The above riposte is excellent. But how have we got to this point? Where stating biological fact is now protected speech? The only thing anyone should be saying to these people is that they are at best mid guided fools or nasty insincere (Owen Jones) evil people. Mermaids being the best example. Turning boys into eunuchs and girls into facsimiles of men. Butchery. With people making a profit from it. They should be hanging their heads in shame. This is all a lie. Stick with the primary argument. There is no such thing as cis. Sex is immutable. If you want to adopt the characteristics of the opposite sex that you were born to. Go for it. You may get some gyp for it and some hate. Welcome to life. And certain people may discriminate against you .so what. You want to live in a multicultural world? Embrace the discord that’s going to be. Become insensitive. Stop dictating to others what they must think or feel. And that’s were the whole trans activism things becomes so toxic. It’s like any lie. Like socialism / communism. it’s a pretence. It doesn’t work. So the movement becomes everything. It’s all about control when you are sustaining a pretence. Hence why it is very dangerous. Women are why we are all here. Unless you prescribe to some brave new world fantasy. Embrace reality. If you’re pushing this bullshit stay away from the vulnerable and definitely stay away from children. Trans women don’t exist as women they are men. End of. And visa versa. And as for non binary. Who the fuck cares outside of their friendship family / groups about narcissists. This is where the middle class new left goes to die, hopefully and metaphorically, in a steaming pyre of tangled identity politics. The contempt I have for these people is beyond what I could or can legally say. And as for Owen Jones. Someone who actually scares me for the murderous person I could see him being as a commissar if he ever gained power.
When Governments reach into our private lives effecting and legislating our homes, income, sexuality, children and well-being based on unscientific Mumbo jumbo we are all in big trouble.Freedom, choice and rationality gone. Less is more from them thanks.
I disagree with the Socialism part. You should take a closer look at the issue. The rest I'm totally with you.
There are only men and women and (Dsd/Intersex is a condition).
Whether you are a feminist or not, left wing or not, religious or not … you cannot change your sex.
If we are talking about an ideologue, a religion or a political system etc then it is a free for all.
No one can force anyone to believe or accept any of these ways of thoughts.
The world is going off in tangents for meaning and purpose and losing its way.
Totally agree. Women are biologically birth givers and mother's. It's what defines them. Men are there to protect the family.
It's not THAT simple either. You are inserting social roles here. Women have the capacity to give birth, and only they do. That doesn't mean that they HAVE to. And while men are biologically stronger, calling them "there to protect the family" is biologising a social role they have or had in many - but not all - societies. We should be careful to never mix these things up. It's exactly what gender ideologues do, in spite of claiming the opposite.
I don't know about that. If a woman is not there to give birth, to mother than what is the definition of a woman in your eyes? This social roles sounds a bit like what gender ideologues say. Sex is binary. Is biology.
What does that make a woman who hasn't given birth IshtarFan? Not a woman? Not a position I support. We are defined by more.
I didn't think of that. Just transwomen can't give birth
A woman has XX chromosomes. A man has XY chromosomes. Having an extra chromosome eg XXY causes Klinefelter’s syndrome. Some people are classed as intersex. A woman (XX) does not have to be a mother or caregiver. A man (XY) can be a caregiver. Many men these days are at home fathers as their wives earn more. What they cannot be is biologically the opposite sex. A natal woman cannot be a man. A natal man cannot be a woman.
Well like we can't see chromosomes. So I don't see the point in defining them as such. We've been able to define man and woman before we even knew chromosomes existed.
We can't see bacteria or viruses either unless we're looking through a microscope. We still know and accept they are there and they exist.
Sex is. What is expected form us in society based on our sex is not. In other words: Women have a body capable of becoming pregnant and giving birth. That is biology. If, how and when they decide to habe a baby and what role they place once the child has been weened - that is the social side. Those are two different things, even though they are inseparably linked. We must stress this point over and over and over again.
He's been boiling my piss for quite a while now. He's taken criticism of jose long personally, and that was due to her uncritical support of Mermaids. Which she has subsequently tried to erase all trace of!
One of his Infinite Monkey Cage episodes is about the sexes, why there are only 2, and discussions around that.
I wonder will he try to remove it, or will he be caught by his new 'target audience '? Not really toeing the line, Robin!
#TheyNeverAnswer
Ah so he has book tour he is plugging! I am noticing a theme with these band wagon jumpers. Publicity.
That may well be the case. Personally, I think it's more about the desire to be respected by your immediate surroundings and the thrill you get at helping to initiate something you deem new and progressive - in other words: to be part of a "new time". We shouldn't underestimate how intoxicating this is to many people.
ah good point …
Superb questions.
Stowing this away for future use. Thank you GL.
Looking forward to your next appearance on the infinite monkey cage!
I would like to know where his programme co-partner Brian Cox (the physicist) stands on this gender woohoo. Not a peep as far as I know.
Supposing he will not answer the questions asked: It’s good to see the closet misogynists wriggle out of the dirt they’ve been hiding in, like worms
I must add I have no idea who he is lol.
If we are to do away with gendered language, how are children to address their beloved parents? Chest feeder? Prostrate haver? Guardian?
Yes social engineering and oppression of the very worst type. They need to get back in line and stick to the mandate they do have. Security, borders, provision of services and equal national well-being without prejudice and based on long term civilised law and principles. That’s about it.
I of course meant prostate haver - damned auto correct
Its birthing parent and non-birthing parent apparently. Rolls off the tongue eh?
I think the aim is to do away with the titles. It will be first-name terms, ostensibly to recognise that children are small people, but actually as a way to weaken the parent-child bond. Only professionals such as teachers will have special forms of address, thus making them the key authority figures in the child's life.
There's been an uptick of those chiming in from the crap-comedy-to-pretend-straighten-your-glasses-to brigade the last few days.
If its concerted I think we can all breathe a sigh of relief, because *my god* what a bunch of clueless wet blankets.
Haha, he does well by his well-connected pals.
I'm probably being cruel, but I have a bad reaction to shite comedy.
LOL. As if the two things are mutually exclusive. That being suspicious of the incompetent, malicious, destructive and duplicitous government (reasonably accurate description) inevitably means looking favourably upon Stonewall (even though they also happen to be malicious, destructive and duplicitous, although perhaps not incompetent if viewed through a lens where success is measured in ability to coerce or dupe institutions and authorities into ratifying malicious,destructive and duplicitous policy.)
This is pretty obviously a feeble piece of shabby showmanship from a guy who makes a living from talking in public and therefore needs to be sure to curry favour from the BBC especially, to secure future contracts, and who titillates by darkly referring to a 'someone' who whilst being a hero of feminism also attacks and abuses feminists. Wow! - aren't we intrigued? Who could this mystery someone be?
Nope. We couldn't care less. The only effect it will have is being more likely to move on to the next programme or show if the name Robin Ince is listed in the credits.