Keir Starmer

mexico1970 said:
A minute amount of people.

statsforgender.org

It is not true that 1.7% of the population is 'born between the sexes'. The proportion of people with DSDs ('intersex' conditions) is 0.018% - Stats for Gender

Conditions in which chromosomal sex is inconsistent with phenotypic sex, or in which the phenotype is not classifiable as either male or female, occur in 0.018% of the population1. The claim that 1.7% of the population is ‘intersex’ includes conditions which most clinicians do not recognize as...
statsforgender.org statsforgender.org
Click to expand...

You're linking to a disreputable source with an obvious agenda using a narrower definition.

We weren't talking about DSD as diagnosed by physicians at birth.
 
maxwellblue said:
OK, just for you, the vast majority of humans are born male or female and no amount of drugs, surgery and make up will change a person's sex. If you and Mr Kobby want to believe it will then that's fine but nothing will change my mind.
Click to expand...
That’s not what you said and it’s not what I replied to. You said they were either male or female. I pointed out you were wrong. You accepted you were wrong but suggested the exceptions were vanishingly small. I said nothing about changing sex and your attempt to put words in my mouth realistically never had any chance of succeeding. What I asked was whether you forgot that a minority existed who are neither male nor female or just didn’t care.

You chose not to answer.

Shall we just leave it there?
 
Chris in London said:
That’s not what you said and it’s not what I replied to. You said they were either male or female. I pointed out you were wrong. You accepted you were wrong but suggested the exceptions were vanishingly small. I said nothing about changing sex and your attempt to put words in my mouth realistically never had any chance of succeeding. What I asked was whether you forgot that a minority existed who are neither male nor female or just didn’t care.

You chose not to answer.

Shall we just leave it there?
Click to expand...
Do what you want, we all know what I was referring too and you being pedantic over very small percentage does change anything. I shall continue to enjoy my san miguel.
 
maxwellblue said:
Do what you want, we all know what I was referring too and you being pedantic over very small percentage does change anything. I shall continue to enjoy my san miguel.
Click to expand...
That very small percentage are in fact human beings.

I guess the answer was that you don’t care.

Enjoy your beer, and your evening.
 
mexico1970 said:
To you it might be but considering all you seem to do is post anti-western shit your response doesn't surprise me in the slightest Bob.

You're an ideologue, but you know that.
Click to expand...

Tolerance is a Western value. I’m all for Western values of tolerance and fairness. We’re not the Taliban or US Christian Nationalist weirdos. I have no interest in making people suffer when they don’t have to.
 
BobKowalski said:
Tolerance is a Western value. I’m all for Western values of tolerance and fairness. We’re not the Taliban or US Christian Nationalist weirdos. I have no interest in making people suffer when they don’t have to.
Click to expand...

Let's hope that people suffering from gender dysphoria get the counselling they need then.
 
metalblue said:
Something going up ~30% in a decade is hardly surprising if you want inflation around 2.5% which acts cumulatively.

Going up 20% overnight is entirely different.

Anyway let’s look at the rationale being provided for increasing fees - it’s to raise funds to improve state schools. Ok let’s take that at face value and assume this is going to pay for all these things Labour want to do - none of which anyone would disagree with. Is it fair that a small section of society who do not use that facility should pay for these improvements? Would it not be fairer to share that investment across a wider group of tax payers through a simple increase in taxation? Those with the broadest shoulders bearing the burden of a small amount each versus a small group bearing a much larger burden? The former approach would likely raise more money (the numbers being muted as this raising are questionable), not tax education as a principle, and which would be better for all concerned - no?
Click to expand...
in a word.....no
 
blueparrot said:
Sure people regret a lot of things and go back on them. How many people that have changed their sex, revert? Don’t know myself but does it matter ?Again what’s that to me?
Click to expand...

It's nothing to do YOU, personally. It's YOu that opened the door to speak on biological birth sex. What's written at birth is written and should stay if the chromosomes are in tandem.

It's not a "trick question" for Starmer, but he's pretty slimy and doesn't like to believe in any position to stick to.

We see this ALL the time.
 
BobKowalski said:
Battle of the sexes. A woman cannot beat a man in a physical game like tennis. Billie Jean King won in straight sets against a man who was confident he would win simply because he was a man.

If a woman can beat a man, then a trans man could also beat a man.
Click to expand...

Name TEN, no, let's make it easier... FIVE that a trans-male has beaten a male in a recognised physical sport, not skill.

And just to make it clear, I stipulated TRANS in my conversation and you went with Billie Jean King, whom you negated to identify as 'trans'. But even so with your argument, that's ONE woman that beat a boastful man who, I suspect, wasn't in the top 100 male tennis players of the time.

Thanks.
 
BobKowalski said:
Why not? And those that do are psychologically profiled when it comes to gender surgery. Also, what business is it of yours or mine anyway? It’s between the person and their doctors and councillors.
Click to expand...

Aren't ALL trans ops psychologically profiled beforehand? This doesn't stop regrets and of reversals ops.

And, like I said, it only affects anyone when it comes to personal relationships and physical sports.
 
The Future’s Blue! said:
Can we please get back to slating Starmer?
Click to expand...
west didsblue said:
Yep, those with a weird interest in all things trans should start a thread about it. Hardly anyone else, including Starmer, sees it as a significant issue that’s worth spending so much time discussing.
Click to expand...
Bit strange me being in the same camp as you 2 In this thread. 10 pages of this bollo....., edit nonsense.
 
Mr Kobayashi said:
No new hip for granny, no pacemaker for grandad. No vasectomy for Uncle Kevin or double mastectomy for Auntie Carol who has breast cancer. Biology has already decided their fate.
Click to expand...

That’s not true with cancer mate. Of course there are some genes that do but equally important are lifestyle choices. Although your overall point stands.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Unread Posts

Don't have an account? Register now and see fewer ads!

SIGN UP
Back
Top