These posts of yours gives me the same feeling one gets when opening a cold bottle of lager on a hot summer day; clink, pop, fizz, glug, ahhh!
Here's thought: since women have not undergone castration, are they really women if undergoing castration is a key feature of becoming a woman?
Since women clearly exist and have existed since whenever without having to be castrated to become women, being a woman cannot be contigent on being castrated.
Therefore, people needing castration to become women cannot be women as women don't need to be castrated in the first place.
Men only, and women only spaces are essential to civilisation I'd argue. Every single culture has or have had that. No need to go overboard, a pub having a "no ladies, no kids, no strollers"-night weekly is plenty. Or "no dudes, bros, chads, men, slobs, couchpotatoes, or brats"-night for the ladies.
The thing is, the people always working to tear down and wreck old instituions don't do it because they want to cure some societal imbalance or something - they do it for the joy they feel in destroying.
You can see it in kids, early on. Boys with that mindset are violent, so they are obvious and get caught early on, and can be corrected.
Girls are instead insidious and clever about it. They tattle to teacher if they aren't allowed in the tree-house the boys built. They don't necessarily want to be let into the treehouse, they want power over the boys (who aren't interested) who are much more impressed with the girl who pitched in and did her share of the work.
I'm sure if anyone thinks back to their school years, they remember girls like that? Well, those girls grew up to become intersectional feminists, since the adult women of that day didn't stamp out the scheming and gossiping and slandering as a viable way of getting ahead in the social hierarchy.
And here we are now, with mentally ill men demanding the girls' club house be either opened to them too, or torn down.
The fact that I think the Australian ruling might go either way says a lot about how even judges these days can lose all ability to reason and apply logic.
A man it's not someone who simply lacks ovaries, just as a woman is not someone who simply lacks a penis- tackle. We all know Mr tickle has no ovaries, no ability to grow a baby inside his belly, and no natural ability to make estrogen without injecting pharmaceuticals.
(Speeling and grammar errors galore, be warned!)
These posts of yours gives me the same feeling one gets when opening a cold bottle of lager on a hot summer day; clink, pop, fizz, glug, ahhh!
Here's thought: since women have not undergone castration, are they really women if undergoing castration is a key feature of becoming a woman?
Since women clearly exist and have existed since whenever without having to be castrated to become women, being a woman cannot be contigent on being castrated.
Therefore, people needing castration to become women cannot be women as women don't need to be castrated in the first place.
Men only, and women only spaces are essential to civilisation I'd argue. Every single culture has or have had that. No need to go overboard, a pub having a "no ladies, no kids, no strollers"-night weekly is plenty. Or "no dudes, bros, chads, men, slobs, couchpotatoes, or brats"-night for the ladies.
The thing is, the people always working to tear down and wreck old instituions don't do it because they want to cure some societal imbalance or something - they do it for the joy they feel in destroying.
You can see it in kids, early on. Boys with that mindset are violent, so they are obvious and get caught early on, and can be corrected.
Girls are instead insidious and clever about it. They tattle to teacher if they aren't allowed in the tree-house the boys built. They don't necessarily want to be let into the treehouse, they want power over the boys (who aren't interested) who are much more impressed with the girl who pitched in and did her share of the work.
I'm sure if anyone thinks back to their school years, they remember girls like that? Well, those girls grew up to become intersectional feminists, since the adult women of that day didn't stamp out the scheming and gossiping and slandering as a viable way of getting ahead in the social hierarchy.
And here we are now, with mentally ill men demanding the girls' club house be either opened to them too, or torn down.
What goes around, comes around.
Perhaps this is the Groucho Marx principle in action?
I don’t mind it, I just wish Tickle were arguing he should be allowed to join women in purdah.
The fact that I think the Australian ruling might go either way says a lot about how even judges these days can lose all ability to reason and apply logic.
A man it's not someone who simply lacks ovaries, just as a woman is not someone who simply lacks a penis- tackle. We all know Mr tickle has no ovaries, no ability to grow a baby inside his belly, and no natural ability to make estrogen without injecting pharmaceuticals.
Well, he still has a beard, so I think that might be an indication of to what degree he has "transitioned." Not very far.