Jump to content

“ Doctors “ pub trans row


JudyJudyJudy

Recommended Posts

4 minutes ago, jonesy said:

Well, I don't doubt that Brett Anderson could ever be accused of not seeking attention.

 

However, surely he can be attracted to blokes and not shag 'em?

But surely being “ attracted “ to someone means you would sha* them? Or do you mean as being attracted to their  personality ?  I can think some woman attractive such as Helen Mirren , Barbra Streisand , Juliette Binoche as i consider them ver pretty but I might not wanna sha* em . Maybe a difference in the terms “ find and “ think “  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 883
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

  • JudyJudyJudy

    384

  • graygo

    52

  • Unknown user

    51

  • CF11JamTart

    42

6 minutes ago, jonesy said:

No idea James. All getting a bit semanticky now.

 

Still, we are all trans.

Yea just be who you are I suppose after all does it all really matter anyway ! 

419FEFB9-9866-45D9-9CDE-CBA30D4FA7F5.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

43 minutes ago, JamesM48 said:

Dearie me ! How can you claim to be bi but not do the practical bit ! ? 😂sounds like attention seeking to me . I had another argument the other day on the “ Pink news “ Facebook about a person stating they were “ pan sexual” so I said “ so your basically what used to be called “ bi sexual “  . She wasn’t happy about this .  They just want to be seen as different and most people don’t give a flying duck 🦆 

You don't understand how someone can be attracted to another gender but have never actually shagged them? You absolutely hate gay folk eh? 😄

 

Oozes out of every post on this thread.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, hughesie27 said:

You don't understand how someone can be attracted to another gender but have never actually shagged them? You absolutely hate gay folk eh? 😄

 

Oozes out of every post on this thread.

I’m flabbergasted 

871B61C0-89D3-4A43-BB81-DAC04381ED44.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, JamesM48 said:

Dearie me ! How can you claim to be bi but not do the practical bit ! ? 😂sounds like attention seeking to me . I had another argument the other day on the “ Pink news “ Facebook about a person stating they were “ pan sexual” so I said “ so your basically what used to be called “ bi sexual “  . She wasn’t happy about this .  They just want to be seen as different and most people don’t give a flying duck 🦆 

 

I might be bi. 

 

I think if I ever met Tom Hardy in the flesh I'd find out. He is one hot looking hunk of loveliness.....I really hope I never meet him.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

42 minutes ago, Der Kaiser said:

 

I might be bi. 

 

I think if I ever met Tom Hardy in the flesh I'd find out. He is one hot looking hunk of loveliness.....I really hope I never meet him.

File under “ Drunken Saturday night posting “ 😂😂😂

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Governor Tarkin
52 minutes ago, jonesy said:


Starmer doing himself no favours with his comments on this one.

 

Starmer is a phannie.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, jonesy said:


Starmer doing himself no favours with his comments on this one.

He’s so insipid 

4 hours ago, Governor Tarkin said:

 

Starmer is a phannie.

A phoney Phannie 

4 hours ago, Lord BJ said:


He’s certainly rivalling Corbyn in leadership qualities. I actually thought he would be good for labour, Shows what I know. 

At least Corbyn stuck to his principles however unpopular they may have been 

1 hour ago, jonesy said:

Do only women have Starmers?

No they have phannies 📣

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, jonesy said:


Starmer doing himself no favours with his comments on this one.

It’s going to be the undoing of many politicians , none of them are unwilling to answer a simple question . What is an adult female woman ? I knew that when I was 3 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, jonesy said:


Starmer doing himself no favours with his comments on this one.

Yes I just viewed his interview with Andrew marr and he said it is transphobic to say that only women have a cervix ! Let the battle commence . What a fud 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nicky Campbell on Five Live this morning being a wee bit provocative with Shadow Home Secretary.

 

NC: is a woman with a penis a woman in every sense? Yes or no. 

SHS: blah blah blah... Look... all transwomen are women! 

NC:  in every sense? 

SHS: YES!

NC: that's the answer then. 

 

So that's clear for us all. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, CF11JamTart said:

Nicky Campbell on Five Live this morning being a wee bit provocative with Shadow Home Secretary.

 

NC: is a woman with a penis a woman in every sense? Yes or no. 

SHS: blah blah blah... Look... all transwomen are women! 

NC:  in every sense? 

SHS: YES!

NC: that's the answer then. 

 

So that's clear for us all. 

They are geting their Willie’s tied up in knots over this issue as they know full well what the honest and scientific answer is really but too scared to say it . And they say the trans lobby isn’t a powerful one ? It’s a weak minority with no influence ? Are you kidding me. ? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, JamesM48 said:

They are geting their Willie’s tied up in knots over this issue as they know full well what the honest and scientific answer is really but too scared to say it . And they say the trans lobby isn’t a powerful one ? It’s a weak minority with no influence ? Are you kidding me. ? 

wish i could tie mines up in knots

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, **** the SPFL said:

wish i could tie mines up in knots

Lol I wish I could meet someone who could go that 😂😂😂😎

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, JamesM48 said:

They are geting their Willie’s tied up in knots over this issue as they know full well what the honest and scientific answer is really but too scared to say it . And they say the trans lobby isn’t a powerful one ? It’s a weak minority with no influence ? Are you kidding me. ? 

It's almost Orwellian at present. Doublethink. 

 

They all know the answer... But people are very reluctant to put head above the parapet and say that a woman is an adult female human, at risk of being labelled "TRANSPHOBE!" , permanently. 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, CF11JamTart said:

It's almost Orwellian at present. Doublethink. 

 

They all know the answer... But people are very reluctant to put head above the parapet and say that a woman is an adult female human, at risk of being labelled "TRANSPHOBE!" , permanently. 

 

 

Exactly . It’s worrying times when reality is ignored and delusional thought accepted 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Deke Thornton said:

And possibly get punched in the mouth by a 6 foot plus person with a full set of male genitalia and wearing a frock.

Its already happened.

 

I'm not surprised in the slightest. 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Deke Thornton said:

And possibly get punched in the mouth by a 6 foot plus person with a full set of male genitalia and wearing a frock.

Its already happened.

 

Yes 
 

 

F8325B1A-15AA-454C-AB3C-1390B57F1FDB.jpeg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A Boy Named Crow
16 hours ago, JamesM48 said:

They are geting their Willie’s tied up in knots over this issue as they know full well what the honest and scientific answer is really but too scared to say it . And they say the trans lobby isn’t a powerful one ? It’s a weak minority with no influence ? Are you kidding me. ? 

I wonder how strong the trans lobby will look when the feminists really get into this.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, A Boy Named Crow said:

I wonder how strong the trans lobby will look when the feminists really get into this.  

Yes the feminists are being too placid and kind just now but are geting angrier by the day . Good 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, JamesM48 said:

Yes the feminists are being too placid and kind just now but are geting angrier by the day . Good 

Totally anecdotally and non scientifically, I'm finding the women i know to be a mixed bunch. 

 

Some are very strongly concerned about the potential degradation of women's sex-based rights.  Probably more middle-aged ones (both gay and straight). 

 

Others (younger, generally) are taking more of a "Hey we're all sisters together" approach. And they will go to war on anyone who suggests otherwise.

 

I guess like life in general, there's a polarisation of views. And a lot are more conservative with a small "c". 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, CF11JamTart said:

Totally anecdotally and non scientifically, I'm finding the women i know to be a mixed bunch. 

 

Some are very strongly concerned about the potential degradation of women's sex-based rights.  Probably more middle-aged ones (both gay and straight). 

 

Others (younger, generally) are taking more of a "Hey we're all sisters together" approach. And they will go to war on anyone who suggests otherwise.

 

I guess like life in general, there's a polarisation of views. And a lot are more conservative with a small "c". 

 

Is that c for cock? 😏

Link to comment
Share on other sites

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/58732146

 

This will doubtless cause commotion. Balancing the inclusion of the trans community, with safety and fairness. It all seems reasonable, but it probably won't be well-received. But frankly, if my daughter was playing park rugby, she wouldn't be thrilled to play against someone who has has the advantages of going through male puberty... On the grounds of fairness and safety. 

 

 

"A wide-ranging review of transgender inclusion in non-elite sport in the UK has concluded the current policies are not fit for purpose and require a reset.

 

The Sports Councils Equality Group (SCEG) said "for many sports, the inclusion of transgender people, fairness and safety cannot co-exist in a single competitive model".

 

The guidance covers community sport up to national level - not international, professional or elite sport."

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, jonesy said:

Thought it struck a fair balance and was written in good faith. 

Agreed. I thought that was very fair. 

 

Needless to say, Stonewall are gonna lose their mind. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, jonesy said:

Thought it struck a fair balance and was written in good faith. 

And in other shattering news the pope is a Catholic 

1 hour ago, CF11JamTart said:

Agreed. I thought that was very fair. 

 

Needless to say, Stonewall are gonna lose their mind. 

They are not fit for purpose . They lost the lot a long time ago . 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, JamesM48 said:

Just wow. Thanks for sharing. 

 

I'm partly speechless. But partly not remotely surprised. 

 

This is the direction of travel that we seem to be sleep-walking along. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

49 minutes ago, CF11JamTart said:

Just wow. Thanks for sharing. 

 

I'm partly speechless. But partly not remotely surprised. 

 

This is the direction of travel that we seem to be sleep-walking along. 

Yes it’s all very concerning 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

JudyJudyJudy
Just now, CF11JamTart said:

I like this a lot. 

 

Especially 'it's called "having a personality"'. 

Yes me too . It’s really so simplistic but so accurate . 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

JudyJudyJudy
14 minutes ago, jonesy said:

If there’s one thing that I’ve discovered from speaking with a couple of more shouty trans-rights people, is that without (and even with) their trans identity, nobody would give them much attention given their non-existent personality. 
 

 

Yes it seems their identity gives them an identity . Whilst no wish to stereotype a few seem to be very unhappy too . Eliot Page in particular is miserable as sin . Like the world is on their shoulder .  Sad really 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 10/10/2021 at 17:33, JamesM48 said:

Only just seen this. Thanks for sharing. 

 

It's mind-boggling. 

 

I heard Stock on Five Live a number of months ago. She was excellent: intelligent,balanced and quite humorous. 

 

I've got her book on order from local library. 

 

Probably makes me a TERF. 

 

But WTAF is going on? Lobby group got a death-like grip on a particular issue... Bulldozing any debate... And intimidating anyone in to silence. 

 

Does anyone ACTUALLY believe that sex isn't immutable? (very rare cases of intersex like Caster Semenya aside).

 

Sex... It's that thing based on your DNA.

 

 

Anyway... This is what cancel culture and totalitarianism looks like. 

 

You speak against "the party line" (or even suggest stopping to have a wee think), you get hounded out your job. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, CF11JamTart said:

Only just seen this. Thanks for sharing. 

 

It's mind-boggling. 

 

I heard Stock on Five Live a number of months ago. She was excellent: intelligent,balanced and quite humorous. 

 

I've got her book on order from local library. 

 

Probably makes me a TERF. 

 

But WTAF is going on? Lobby group got a death-like grip on a particular issue... Bulldozing any debate... And intimidating anyone in to silence. 

 

Does anyone ACTUALLY believe that sex isn't immutable? (very rare cases of intersex like Caster Semenya aside).

 

Sex... It's that thing based on your DNA.

 

 

Anyway... This is what cancel culture and totalitarianism looks like. 

 

You speak against "the party line" (or even suggest stopping to have a wee think), you get hounded out your job. 

 

I've believed Gender to be a sham for a long time. People should be themselves, whoever that is and like whatever they want, dress however they want etc

 

Sex though, is just your sex. It's no different to whether you've got brown eyes or blue eyes and it shouldn't shape who you are in any way. (I appreciate people dye their hair and wear coloured contacts etc)

 

I think the lobbying is so aggressive is because, whilst they can silence people, they know deep down cannot make them change their views.

 

For me, a male is a male, and a female is a female, and I'll never be believe otherwise. What a male or a female looks like, sounds like, acts like, what interests they have, job they have, partner they have, hopes and dreams they have...well there's endless possibilities and their all open to both sexes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

27 minutes ago, Taffin said:

 

I've believed Gender to be a sham for a long time. People should be themselves, whoever that is and like whatever they want, dress however they want etc

 

Sex though, is just your sex. It's no different to whether you've got brown eyes or blue eyes and it shouldn't shape who you are in any way. (I appreciate people dye their hair and wear coloured contacts etc)

 

I think the lobbying is so aggressive is because, whilst they can silence people, they know deep down cannot make them change their views.

 

For me, a male is a male, and a female is a female, and I'll never be believe otherwise. What a male or a female looks like, sounds like, acts like, what interests they have, job they have, partner they have, hopes and dreams they have...well there's endless possibilities and their all open to both sexes.

Totally agree.

 

And presumably the hard-line trans lobby are happy to mistake silence for agreement with their assertions. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, CF11JamTart said:

Only just seen this. Thanks for sharing. 

 

It's mind-boggling. 

 

I heard Stock on Five Live a number of months ago. She was excellent: intelligent,balanced and quite humorous. 

 

I've got her book on order from local library. 

 

Probably makes me a TERF. 

 

But WTAF is going on? Lobby group got a death-like grip on a particular issue... Bulldozing any debate... And intimidating anyone in to silence. 

 

Does anyone ACTUALLY believe that sex isn't immutable? (very rare cases of intersex like Caster Semenya aside).

 

Sex... It's that thing based on your DNA.

 

 

Anyway... This is what cancel culture and totalitarianism looks like. 

 

You speak against "the party line" (or even suggest stopping to have a wee think), you get hounded out your job. 

Wake up, folks! 👇

 

 

"Suzanne Moore - brilliant, furious, scorching and eloquent as ever - in today's Telegraph:

 

 

I cannot stand the platitudinous Thought for the Day that features on Radio 4’s Today programme. Wednesday’s was even more condescending than usual. We had Rabbi Laura Janner-Klausner explaining the whole gender/trans debate to us as though we were five.

Her eldest child is trans, and very good luck to them. Honestly, I mean that. But Janner-Klauser went on to say that sometimes, she and others get pronouns wrong because we all make “mistakes”, that we are fearful of asking questions about this contentious issue, so we stay silent and fearful. We should forgive each other our mistakes as hatred comes from a lack of knowledge.

All this was sparked by what is currently happening to Professor Kathleen Stock, a professor of philosophy at the University of Sussex, whose employment was “effectively ended” this week after her teaching union called on university management to “take a clear and strong stance against transphobia at Sussex”, to undertake an investigation into “institutional transphobia” and offer “unequivocal support” to trans students.

Stock’s crime? She recently published a book questioning the idea that gender identity is more “socially significant” than biological sex.

After the inevitable outcry – during which she received death threats from pro-transgender activists, and posters were put up around campus saying: ‘We’re not paying £9,250 a year for transphobia – fire Kathleen Stock’, she was advised by the police to install CCTV on her front door, to not attend public meetings, and that she might need security guards to accompany her around the university. Someone talking about harmless “mistakes” is missing the point, to put it mildly.

If anyone has thought about the differences between gender identity, biological sex and sexual orientation, Stock has. In her book Material Girls, she lays out her argument that biological reality matters. I happen to agree – but even if I didn’t, I would still defend her, firstly because I believe in free speech and secondly because I empathise with some of what is happening to her.

Stock was not able to attend a public meeting at the weekend (the police advised her not to), but a statement was read out instead. It included this passage: “Most of my students are the same as they always have been: curious, idealistic, insightful, passionate, full of bright ideas, keen to do the right thing, and very fun to teach. But what has changed on campus in the last decade is the way that technology – most obviously social media – has allowed a few students with totalitarian tendencies to have a disproportionate chilling effect on the rest.

“In my experience, plenty of academics will deny there is a free speech problem in academia. For some of them, this is because their own ideas are utterly banal for the discipline in which they work, so that they don’t ever have cause to notice the problem.”

The problem for Stock is that, while her vice chancellor supported her, her former union did not; her branch of the University and College Union has shown itself to have no understanding of solidarity, and is pathetic.

Having been threatened with harm and hounded, she is now being driven out of employment. Her supporters have stickered the campus with quotes from her book, including: “Trans people are trans people. We should get over it: they deserve to be safe, to be visible throughout society without shame or stigma, and to have exactly the life opportunities non-trans people do.”

God, what a danger she is. Burn the witch!

A belief in biological sex is now verboten. We must sign up to the new religion, mouthing mantras that many of us simply know to be untrue. The complex debates around gender and trans rights have tended to be seen as ‘women’s issues’. Men rarely write about them – and if they do, they are not sent rape threats. Their colleagues do not gang up against them.

As someone who has experienced this, I know how it feels: when I worked at a ‘progressive’ newspaper, I wrote how I believed biological sex to be real and that it’s not transphobic to understand basic science – and my colleagues’ response left me betrayed, broken, devastated.

At that time, I was sent messages every day from big names, and even former ‘enemies’, in support. In public, I was being trashed as a transphobe. My bosses did nothing, some because they disagreed, which is fine, but mostly because they were scared.

There is nothing non-binary about cowardice. There is nothing radical about allowing misogyny in the name of ‘inclusivity’. There is nothing liberal about allowing men to dictate which women’s rights are to be given away.

People like Stock – or Maya Forstater, the think-tank worker who lost her job after saying that people cannot change their biological sex – never asked to be in the public eye and to have to deal with the kind of abuse they are getting. As a journalist, I was perhaps a little more used to it, but I was still numb. Bullying does that to you.

In the end, you close down because, if you don’t, you simply break down. My loved ones were worried about me. I remember one ex-colleague writing: “I always thought you were bullet-proof”. Really? If you cut me do I not bleed?

JK Rowling also has first-hand experience of the mob. After she tweeted her support for Forstater (“Dress however you please. Call yourself whatever you like”), the three leading stars of the Harry Potter films, Daniel Radcliffe, Emma Watson and Rupert Grint distanced themselves from Rowling’s comments. Their intervention prompted a social media pile-on in which Rowling was called a “Feminazi, terf [short for ‘trans-exclusionary radical feminist’], b---- , witch”: “Times change,” she said, “woman-hate is eternal.”

The Witchfinder Generals of social media scent blood and go after one woman after another, but this is not to be relegated to ‘a woman’s issue’. This is one of free speech. We can believe what we like, but only if we don’t say it out loud.

This week, Cambridge University’s student union issued a guide – written by its new women’s officer, who goes by the pronouns he/him and they/them – entitled How to Spot Terf Ideology. It suggests that being a woman is not just down to biological sex, and says those who question this idea could be “transphobic”, or even linked to the “far Right”. Are students now not able to think for themselves on this subject? This is insanity.

A friend who happens to be trans once said to me: “Book-burning starts one word at a time”. How true; the word we are no longer allowed to use is “women”. The Scottish Government was criticised this week after its new cancer screening campaign urged “anyone with a cervix” to come forward for a smear test, rather than women. Instead, women are now a collection of body parts: cervix-havers, menstruaters, gestaters. Men, I note, are still men.

This is the moment at which you have to choose a side – just as we did over The Satanic Verses. The fuss made because I argued for the right for women to have single-sex spaces was ridiculous, but fundamentalists who had not read Rushdie’s book burnt it and murdered its publishers.

Now women are being threatened. They are losing jobs, being made pariahs because they do not adhere to the fundamentalist tenants of extreme gender ideology. So it’s time to understand exactly what is being threatened here: it is freedom of thought, freedom of speech. It has very little to do with the one per cent of the population who may be trans.

It is everything to do with the closing down of questioning, inquiry, philosophy within many of our institutions. You are free to disagree with me, but you should not be free to hound me out of employment because of it. If you did that on the basis of race or religion, there would be no question that this was wrong.

Somehow, though, this progressive misogyny is everywhere. It’s time for everyone to stand up to it, to stand up for freedom of speech. We use it or lose it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, CF11JamTart said:

Only just seen this. Thanks for sharing. 

 

It's mind-boggling. 

 

I heard Stock on Five Live a number of months ago. She was excellent: intelligent,balanced and quite humorous. 

 

I've got her book on order from local library. 

 

Probably makes me a TERF. 

 

But WTAF is going on? Lobby group got a death-like grip on a particular issue... Bulldozing any debate... And intimidating anyone in to silence. 

 

Does anyone ACTUALLY believe that sex isn't immutable? (very rare cases of intersex like Caster Semenya aside).

 

Sex... It's that thing based on your DNA.

 

 

Anyway... This is what cancel culture and totalitarianism looks like. 

 

You speak against "the party line" (or even suggest stopping to have a wee think), you get hounded out your job. 

I’ve posted a terrific piece from Suzanne Moore 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, Taffin said:

 

I've believed Gender to be a sham for a long time. People should be themselves, whoever that is and like whatever they want, dress however they want etc

 

Sex though, is just your sex. It's no different to whether you've got brown eyes or blue eyes and it shouldn't shape who you are in any way. (I appreciate people dye their hair and wear coloured contacts etc)

 

I think the lobbying is so aggressive is because, whilst they can silence people, they know deep down cannot make them change their views.

 

For me, a male is a male, and a female is a female, and I'll never be believe otherwise. What a male or a female looks like, sounds like, acts like, what interests they have, job they have, partner they have, hopes and dreams they have...well there's endless possibilities and their all open to both sexes.

Completely agree, Taffin. This nonsense about gender being " assigned" at birth couldn't be further from the truth.

There is a spectrum but, you're right, biological males are males and females are females. 

People can identify as whatever they wish and be free from persecution but we shouldn't be denying biological facts and changing our language and discourse to accomodate this small minority. 

Last night on QT, biologist and Labour peer, Robert Winston, told a few home truths while the Labour minister completely fudged the issue. Winston said " you cannot just change your sex, it runs right through your body, DNA, chromosomes etc". 

We need more people to stand up to a suffocating liberal movement that obsesses about gender to the point of mania.

It's ironic that those who demand to be "kept safe" i.e not exposed to views they disagree with, think nothing of issuing death threats to those who disagree with them.

If you don't want to hear alternative views and critical thought then, quite simply, you shouldn't be at University. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

46 minutes ago, Taffin said:

 

I've believed Gender to be a sham for a long time. People should be themselves, whoever that is and like whatever they want, dress however they want etc

 

Sex though, is just your sex. It's no different to whether you've got brown eyes or blue eyes and it shouldn't shape who you are in any way. (I appreciate people dye their hair and wear coloured contacts etc)

 

I think the lobbying is so aggressive is because, whilst they can silence people, they know deep down cannot make them change their views.

 

For me, a male is a male, and a female is a female, and I'll never be believe otherwise. What a male or a female looks like, sounds like, acts like, what interests they have, job they have, partner they have, hopes and dreams they have...well there's endless possibilities and their all open to both sexes.

Agreed ! The problem is the trans mob ( sorry the more Miltant aspect of trans ) are adamant that you can change sex . So it’s a complete waste of time actually trying to reason with them. They also seem to promote gender stereotypes too which is infuriating as well As homophobic . 

Edited by JamesM48
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Enzo Chiefo said:

Completely agree, Taffin. This nonsense about gender being " assigned" at birth couldn't be further from the truth.

There is a spectrum but, you're right, biological males are males and females are females. 

People can identify as whatever they wish and be free from persecution but we shouldn't be denying biological facts and changing our language and discourse to accomodate this small minority. 

Last night on QT, biologist and Labour peer, Robert Winston, told a few home truths while the Labour minister completely fudged the issue. Winston said " you cannot just change your sex, it runs right through your body, DNA, chromosomes etc". 

We need more people to stand up to a suffocating liberal movement that obsesses about gender to the point of mania.

It's ironic that those who demand to be "kept safe" i.e not exposed to views they disagree with, think nothing of issuing death threats to those who disagree with them.

If you don't want to hear alternative views and critical thought then, quite simply, you shouldn't be at University. 

Good posting 👍 I must watch that question time episode . About time public figures were debunking most of the trans ideology nonsense . 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.




×
×
  • Create New...