surely the churches in the country have oodles of dosh stashed away
they could donate?
"Brian Gaff" <brian1gaff@gmail.com> wrote in message news:tvjrgr$1k3cg$1@dont-email.me...
I was tuning around the medium wave today and noticed Premier, the Christian station appealing for the general public to donate to keep
their DAB system running. OK I know that they are possibly niche, but surely the churches in the country have oodles of dosh stashed away
they could donate? Myself, I find their output to be naive about the
world and somewhat condescending, but each to their own.
I find the whole concept of religion, in the sense of worship, belief-without-proof, and persecution of sections of the population
(women, gays etc) "naive ... and somewhat condescending" and downright offensive and illegal. Religions have a great deal to offer as codes for everyone living together harmoniously, but that's where they should end.
The Sex Discrimination Act should not have had an exemption for
religions: any religion which practices discrimination against women
priests or uses "it's against my religious beliefs" to ban homosexual
hotel guests etc has no place in modern society, and prosecutions should ensue. Social attitudes change, and religions should keep up with those attitudes. Otherwise they become irrelevant. You can't foist attitudes
from 2000 years ago on 21st century life.
In article <tvk19q$1l183$1@dont-email.me>, NY <me@privacy.invalid> wrote:
"Brian Gaff" <brian1gaff@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:tvjrgr$1k3cg$1@dont-email.me...
I was tuning around the medium wave today and noticed Premier, the
Christian station appealing for the general public to donate to keep
their DAB system running. OK I know that they are possibly niche, but
surely the churches in the country have oodles of dosh stashed away
they could donate? Myself, I find their output to be naive about the
world and somewhat condescending, but each to their own.
I find the whole concept of religion, in the sense of worship,
belief-without-proof, and persecution of sections of the population
(women, gays etc) "naive ... and somewhat condescending" and downright
offensive and illegal. Religions have a great deal to offer as codes for
everyone living together harmoniously, but that's where they should end.
The Sex Discrimination Act should not have had an exemption for
religions: any religion which practices discrimination against women
priests or uses "it's against my religious beliefs" to ban homosexual
hotel guests etc has no place in modern society, and prosecutions should
ensue. Social attitudes change, and religions should keep up with those
attitudes. Otherwise they become irrelevant. You can't foist attitudes
from 2000 years ago on 21st century life.
Thou shalt not commit adutery, thou shalt not steal, thou shalt not kill
and thou shalt not bear false witness are ideas totally alien to the 21st Century
surely the churches in the country have oodles of dosh stashed away
they could donate?
They could sell all that lead and get EDPM roofing...
I was tuning around the medium wave today and noticed Premier, the
Christian station appealing for the general public to donate to keep their DAB system running. OK I know that they are possibly niche, but surely the churches in the country have oodles of dosh stashed away they could
donate?
Myself, I find their output to be naive about the world and somewhat condescending, but each to their own.
On 24/03/2023 11:41, charles wrote:
In article <tvk19q$1l183$1@dont-email.me>, NY <me@privacy.invalid> wrote: >>> "Brian Gaff" <brian1gaff@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:tvjrgr$1k3cg$1@dont-email.me...
I was tuning around the medium wave today and noticed Premier, the
Christian station appealing for the general public to donate to keep
their DAB system running. OK I know that they are possibly niche, but
surely the churches in the country have oodles of dosh stashed away
they could donate? Myself, I find their output to be naive about the
world and somewhat condescending, but each to their own.
I find the whole concept of religion, in the sense of worship,
belief-without-proof, and persecution of sections of the population
(women, gays etc) "naive ... and somewhat condescending" and downright
offensive and illegal. Religions have a great deal to offer as codes for >>> everyone living together harmoniously, but that's where they should end.
The Sex Discrimination Act should not have had an exemption for
religions: any religion which practices discrimination against women
priests or uses "it's against my religious beliefs" to ban homosexual
hotel guests etc has no place in modern society, and prosecutions should >>> ensue. Social attitudes change, and religions should keep up with those
attitudes. Otherwise they become irrelevant. You can't foist attitudes
from 2000 years ago on 21st century life.
Thou shalt not commit adutery, thou shalt not steal, thou shalt not kill
and thou shalt not bear false witness are ideas totally alien to the 21st
Century
But at least intolerance of dissenting views appears to be alive and well.
"Brian Gaff" <brian1gaff@gmail.com> wrote in message news:tvjrgr$1k3cg$1@dont-email.me...
I was tuning around the medium wave today and noticed Premier, the
Christian station appealing for the general public to donate to keep
their DAB system running. OK I know that they are possibly niche, but
surely the churches in the country have oodles of dosh stashed away
they could donate?
Myself, I find their output to be naive about the world and somewhat
condescending, but each to their own.
I find the whole concept of religion, in the sense of worship, belief-without-proof, and persecution of sections of the population
(women, gays etc) "naive ... and somewhat condescending" and downright offensive and illegal. Religions have a great deal to offer as codes for everyone living together harmoniously, but that's where they should end.
The Sex Discrimination Act should not have had an exemption for
religions: any religion which practices discrimination against women
priests or uses "it's against my religious beliefs" to ban homosexual
hotel guests etc has no place in modern society, and prosecutions should ensue. Social attitudes change, and religions should keep up with those attitudes. Otherwise they become irrelevant. You can't foist attitudes
from 2000 years ago on 21st century life.
Who buys lead these days and what do they use it for?
Paul Ratcliffe wrote:
Who buys lead these days and what do they use it for?
Somebody must, because I got a good price for my old weathering slate.
In article <tvk19q$1l183$1@dont-email.me>, NY <me@privacy.invalid> wrote:
"Brian Gaff" <brian1gaff@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:tvjrgr$1k3cg$1@dont-email.me...
I was tuning around the medium wave today and noticed Premier, the
Christian station appealing for the general public to donate to keep
their DAB system running. OK I know that they are possibly niche, but
surely the churches in the country have oodles of dosh stashed away
they could donate? Myself, I find their output to be naive about the
world and somewhat condescending, but each to their own.
I find the whole concept of religion, in the sense of worship,
belief-without-proof, and persecution of sections of the population
(women, gays etc) "naive ... and somewhat condescending" and downright
offensive and illegal. Religions have a great deal to offer as codes for
everyone living together harmoniously, but that's where they should end.
The Sex Discrimination Act should not have had an exemption for
religions: any religion which practices discrimination against women
priests or uses "it's against my religious beliefs" to ban homosexual
hotel guests etc has no place in modern society, and prosecutions should
ensue. Social attitudes change, and religions should keep up with those
attitudes. Otherwise they become irrelevant. You can't foist attitudes
from 2000 years ago on 21st century life.
Thou shalt not commit adutery, thou shalt not steal, thou shalt not kill
and thou shalt not bear false witness are ideas totally alien to the 21st Century
On Fri, 24 Mar 2023 09:55:54 +0000, Andy Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk> wrote:
surely the churches in the country have oodles of dosh stashed away
they could donate?
They could sell all that lead and get EDPM roofing...
Who buys lead these days and what do they use it for?
Apart from churches who have had theirs nicked of course...
surely the churches in the country have oodles of dosh stashed away
they could donate?
They could sell all that lead and get EDPM roofing...
Who buys lead these days and what do they use it for?
Apart from churches who have had theirs nicked of course...
It must have some value or it wouldn't get nicked.
"Brian Gaff" <brian1gaff@gmail.com> wrote in message news:tvjrgr$1k3cg$1@dont-email.me...
I was tuning around the medium wave today and noticed Premier, the Christian station appealing for the general public to donate to keep their DAB system running. OK I know that they are possibly niche, but surely the churches in the country have oodles of dosh stashed away they could
donate?
Myself, I find their output to be naive about the world and somewhat condescending, but each to their own.
I find the whole concept of religion, in the sense of worship, belief-without-proof, and persecution of sections of the population (women, gays etc) "naive ... and somewhat condescending" and downright offensive and illegal. Religions have a great deal to offer as codes for everyone living together harmoniously, but that's where they should end.
The Sex Discrimination Act should not have had an exemption for religions: any religion which practices discrimination against women priests or uses "it's against my religious beliefs" to ban homosexual hotel guests etc has
no place in modern society, and prosecutions should ensue. Social attitudes change, and religions should keep up with those attitudes. Otherwise they become irrelevant. You can't foist attitudes from 2000 years ago on 21st century life.
The critical point, which is usually overlooked, is that religion is a
choice but many of the characteristics regarded as 'abominations' by
some religions are natural variations over which the person being
persecuted has no control.
Women are born women, they don't choose to be women.
Homosexuals are born homosexual, they don't choose to be homosexual. >Transgender people are born transgender, they don't choose to be
transgender.
Religious believers are not born religious believers, they choose to be >religious believers.
On Fri, 24 Mar 2023 20:53:49 +0000, liz@poppyrecords.invalid.invalid
(Liz Tuddenham) wrote:
The critical point, which is usually overlooked, is that religion is a >choice but many of the characteristics regarded as 'abominations' by
some religions are natural variations over which the person being >persecuted has no control.
Women are born women, they don't choose to be women.
Homosexuals are born homosexual, they don't choose to be homosexual. >Transgender people are born transgender, they don't choose to be >transgender.
Religious believers are not born religious believers, they choose to be >religious believers.
Paedophiles are born paedophiles.
Discuss...
On 25/03/2023 10:42, Max Demian wrote:
Perhaps "born" paedophiles should be substantially compensated for their
inability to obtain sexual satisfaction in the same way that a person
who is prevented from having sex by an industrial accident would be able
to claim substantial compensation from his employer.
Only if they agree to have those urges suppressed permanently.
NY <me@privacy.invalid> wrote:
"Brian Gaff" <brian1gaff@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:tvjrgr$1k3cg$1@dont-email.me...
I was tuning around the medium wave today and noticed Premier, the
Christian station appealing for the general public to donate to keep their >>> DAB system running. OK I know that they are possibly niche, but surely the >>> churches in the country have oodles of dosh stashed away they could
donate?
Myself, I find their output to be naive about the world and somewhat
condescending, but each to their own.
I find the whole concept of religion, in the sense of worship,
belief-without-proof, and persecution of sections of the population (women, >> gays etc) "naive ... and somewhat condescending" and downright offensive and >> illegal. Religions have a great deal to offer as codes for everyone living >> together harmoniously, but that's where they should end.
The Sex Discrimination Act should not have had an exemption for religions: >> any religion which practices discrimination against women priests or uses
"it's against my religious beliefs" to ban homosexual hotel guests etc has >> no place in modern society, and prosecutions should ensue. Social attitudes >> change, and religions should keep up with those attitudes. Otherwise they
become irrelevant. You can't foist attitudes from 2000 years ago on 21st
century life.
The critical point, which is usually overlooked, is that religion is a
choice but many of the characteristics regarded as 'abominations' by
some religions are natural variations over which the person being
persecuted has no control.
Women are born women, they don't choose to be women.
Homosexuals are born homosexual, they don't choose to be homosexual. Transgender people are born transgender, they don't choose to be
transgender.
Religious believers are not born religious believers, they choose to be religious believers.
They have every right to say that people who choose to behave in a
particular way should be excluded from their club but they have no right
to exclude people because the are black, transgender or left-handed. Furthermore, they have absolutely no right whatsoever to interfere in
the lives of other people in order to impose their own beliefs.
If I offend a religious person because of what I am, that is their
problem and I refuse to let them make it mine.
Roderick Stewart <rjfs@escapetime.myzen.co.uk> wrote:
On Fri, 24 Mar 2023 20:53:49 +0000, liz@poppyrecords.invalid.invalid
(Liz Tuddenham) wrote:
The critical point, which is usually overlooked, is that religion is a
choice but many of the characteristics regarded as 'abominations' by
some religions are natural variations over which the person being
persecuted has no control.
Women are born women, they don't choose to be women.
Homosexuals are born homosexual, they don't choose to be homosexual.
Transgender people are born transgender, they don't choose to be
transgender.
Religious believers are not born religious believers, they choose to be
religious believers.
Paedophiles are born paedophiles.
Discuss...
There are two factors here: what you are born as and what you do about
it. Condemn the behaviour but not the person.
Perhaps "born" paedophiles should be substantially compensated for their inability to obtain sexual satisfaction in the same way that a person
who is prevented from having sex by an industrial accident would be able
to claim substantial compensation from his employer.
On 24/03/2023 12:48, Andy Burns wrote:
Paul Ratcliffe wrote:You won't find much lead in slate, weathered or not.
Who buys lead these days and what do they use it for?
Somebody must, because I got a good price for my old weathering slate.
On 24/03/2023 20:53, Liz Tuddenham wrote:
NY <me@privacy.invalid> wrote:
"Brian Gaff" <brian1gaff@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:tvjrgr$1k3cg$1@dont-email.me...
I was tuning around the medium wave today and noticed Premier, the
Christian station appealing for the general public to donate to keep
their
DAB system running. OK I know that they are possibly niche, but surely >>>> the
churches in the country have oodles of dosh stashed away they could
donate?
Myself, I find their output to be naive about the world and somewhat
condescending, but each to their own.
I find the whole concept of religion, in the sense of worship,
belief-without-proof, and persecution of sections of the population
(women,
gays etc) "naive ... and somewhat condescending" and downright offensive >>> and
illegal. Religions have a great deal to offer as codes for everyone
living
together harmoniously, but that's where they should end.
The Sex Discrimination Act should not have had an exemption for
religions:
any religion which practices discrimination against women priests or
uses
"it's against my religious beliefs" to ban homosexual hotel guests etc
has
no place in modern society, and prosecutions should ensue. Social
attitudes
change, and religions should keep up with those attitudes. Otherwise
they
become irrelevant. You can't foist attitudes from 2000 years ago on 21st >>> century life.
The critical point, which is usually overlooked, is that religion is a
choice but many of the characteristics regarded as 'abominations' by
some religions are natural variations over which the person being
persecuted has no control.
Women are born women, they don't choose to be women.
Homosexuals are born homosexual, they don't choose to be homosexual.
Transgender people are born transgender, they don't choose to be
transgender.
Religious believers are not born religious believers, they choose to be
religious believers.
They have every right to say that people who choose to behave in a
particular way should be excluded from their club but they have no right
to exclude people because the are black, transgender or left-handed.
Furthermore, they have absolutely no right whatsoever to interfere in
the lives of other people in order to impose their own beliefs.
If I offend a religious person because of what I am, that is their
problem and I refuse to let them make it mine.
It's rather a complicated matter as, originally, religion was intimately bound to a society - Ancient Greek didn't have a word for religion; it was just part of life.
This was complicated when people of a particular religion - e.g. Jews -
moved into a place with a different religion - e.g. Christians. The host community felt that they were violated by the alien beliefs and practices.
Then we have schisms of existing religions, such as Roman and Protestant; Shia and Sunni Moslems.
Do people really choose the religion they grow up in, or it determined by upbringing or where they are born?
With regard to who is allowed in, or what they are allowed to do, this is also determined by which practices are allowed by the religion. "Sinners"
are not allowed, and the religion decides what counts as a sin. This obviously could include homosexuality - "lying with a man as with a
woman" - it could equally include whether you are a meat eater or what
race you are - some religions grow up amongst members of a particular race
or like to regard their religion as a race such as the Jews.
A secular community can then decide which practices can be discriminated against and which can't and these requirements may change with time.
Blasphemy is an interesting concept; why should a god be protected from attack if it is all powerful? In the past perhaps it was thought that the crops would fail if God is offended, even by an infidel. Are we allowed to mock beliefs that we think are absurd? Is it just a matter of
"politeness", or does freedom of speech take precedence?
--
Max Demian
On Fri, 24 Mar 2023 09:55:54 +0000, Andy Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk>
wrote:
surely the churches in the country have oodles of dosh stashed away
they could donate?
They could sell all that lead and get EDPM roofing...
Who buys lead these days and what do they use it for?
Apart from churches who have had theirs nicked of course...
On 25/03/2023 09:30, Liz Tuddenham wrote:
Roderick Stewart <rjfs@escapetime.myzen.co.uk> wrote:
On Fri, 24 Mar 2023 20:53:49 +0000, liz@poppyrecords.invalid.invalid
(Liz Tuddenham) wrote:
The critical point, which is usually overlooked, is that religion is a >>> choice but many of the characteristics regarded as 'abominations' by
some religions are natural variations over which the person being
persecuted has no control.
Women are born women, they don't choose to be women.
Homosexuals are born homosexual, they don't choose to be homosexual.
Transgender people are born transgender, they don't choose to be
transgender.
Religious believers are not born religious believers, they choose to be >>> religious believers.
Paedophiles are born paedophiles.
Discuss...
There are two factors here: what you are born as and what you do about
it. Condemn the behaviour but not the person.
Perhaps "born" paedophiles should be substantially compensated for their inability to obtain sexual satisfaction in the same way that a person
who is prevented from having sex by an industrial accident would be able
to claim substantial compensation from his employer.
Homosexuality is distateful to many people
On 25/03/2023 13:48, Liz Tuddenham wrote:
Homosexuality is distateful to many people
I have no interest in where they stick their 'bits' provided done in
private but why do some many have to speak in very 'camp' voices and
behave very 'camp'. That can have nothing to do with genes etc.
I have no interest in where they stick their 'bits' provided done in
private but why do some many have to speak in very 'camp' voices and
behave very 'camp'.
Unfortunately there is still an element of sleaze associated with homosexuality, a hangover from when it was illegal. Some homosexuals
feel the need to celebrate their new-found freedom by telling everyone
about it (either verbally or by appearance and behaviour).
In a generation or two it will have all calmed down and will be no more remarkable (to the public or the participants) than hair colour or a
food preference.
Yes I gree, and this is why the various Muslim faiths and some others still in effect see females as property. I think in the old lawless days women
were fair game and making the blokes look after their own was the only way, but although we still get sexual predators, all religions need to modernise. I had a stand up argument on a radio station with a journalist when she said she was against the ordination of women. I mean, its no wonder a lot of
those who happen to believe in god keep clear of organised religion!
Max Demian <max_demian@bigfoot.com> wrote:
Perhaps "born" paedophiles should be substantially compensated for their
inability to obtain sexual satisfaction in the same way that a person
who is prevented from having sex by an industrial accident would be able
to claim substantial compensation from his employer.
As society has become more civilised, it has found ways of coping with conditions that some people object to by varying degres. Some are
merely harmless to other but some are generally agreed to be intolerable because of the harm they do.
Left-handedness was regarded as the sign of the Devil until about 150
years ago (more recently in some countries), but nowadays left-handers
are often allowed-for in the design of things intended to be operated by
the general public.
Homosexuality is distateful to many people and many homosexuals were
driven to take their own lives because Society could not come to terms
with them and wanted to punish them for it. Nowadays it is recognised
as a natural condition and the pactices associated with it, although
still distateful to many people, are tolerated as long as they are not exhibited to the public. (Exactly the same could be said of some heterosexual practices - even kissing between a husband and wife in
public offends some people and religious organisations).
We now understand that the offence is not caused by the person being homosexual or even indulging in a homosexual act, it is in doing that
where it may be seen by people who do not want to see it. It is not the
act itself, it is the act of doing it inconsiderately that causes
offence; civilised society now recognises that.
Transgender people have spent years of misery trying to hide their
condition and, in the past, have taken their own lives when 'outed' by
the press. Gradually things are changing and I have no difficulty being accepted as a woman in public. There are still a few hate groups who
have the ear of the press, the BBC and the government, but they are out
of touch with the majority of people, most of whom actually know someone
who is transgender and are wondering what all the fuss is about. Listen
to some of their arguments and substitute the words "Black" or Gay" for Transgender and, if you are over a certain age, you will find they sound strangely familiar.
Paedophiles and rapists are more difficult to come to terms with because
they cause actual harm by indulging their natural instincts. Possibly
in a few years time we shall have found a way of letting those instincts
be dissipated in a harmless fashion so that we can tolerate the people,
but never their acts, and accept them into society as long as they don't cause harm.
Virtual Reality is a contentious posibility, does it dissipate these instincts or does it tend to encourage them?
I haven't been able to get a right handed Lancashire peeler for ages.
The ambidextrous ones aren't as good as the peelings get stuck in the
other slot. Otherwise I don't mind "lefties". I've got a right handed
lemon squeezer, but an ambidextrous one would be as good.
Effeminacy offends the ideal of masculinity. Maybe we need masculinity
(and femininity) for society to function.
Again, transgenderism may offend the ideal of masculinity, and many transexuals don't convincingly look like the sex they want to be.
It's also unreasonable to expect us to use special pronouns and "new
names" and be harassed if we refuse to do so.
It's the notion that anyone could find children in any way sexually attractive that offends most people.
On 25/03/2023 12:38, Brian Gaff wrote:
Yes I gree, and this is why the various Muslim faiths and some others still in effect see females as property. I think in the old lawless days women were fair game and making the blokes look after their own was the only way, but although we still get sexual predators, all religions need to modernise.
I had a stand up argument on a radio station with a journalist when she said
she was against the ordination of women. I mean, its no wonder a lot of those who happen to believe in god keep clear of organised religion!
If God doesn't want to be attended by priestesses, who are we to argue
with Him?
They are their own worse enemies, all the fuss when a celebrity admits
to being homosexual and that he he has tested HIV Positive, he then gets >called a 'hero' and lauded?
Left-handedness was regarded as the sign of the Devil until about 150
years ago (more recently in some countries), but nowadays left-handers
are often allowed-for in the design of things intended to be operated by
the general public.
On 25/03/2023 12:38, Brian Gaff wrote:
Yes I gree, and this is why the various Muslim faiths and some others still >> in effect see females as property. I think in the old lawless days women
were fair game and making the blokes look after their own was the only way, >> but although we still get sexual predators, all religions need to modernise. >> I had a stand up argument on a radio station with a journalist when she said >> she was against the ordination of women. I mean, its no wonder a lot of
those who happen to believe in god keep clear of organised religion!
If God doesn't want to be attended by priestesses, who are we to argue
with Him?
Is it really God who wants this though? Is it not just bigoted
followers making up their own rules? How do they reconcile the
undesirability of homosexuals with the notion that according to
their beliefs it must have been God who created them?
Max Demian <max_demian@bigfoot.com> wrote:
[...]
I haven't been able to get a right handed Lancashire peeler for ages.
The ambidextrous ones aren't as good as the peelings get stuck in the
other slot. Otherwise I don't mind "lefties". I've got a right handed
lemon squeezer, but an ambidextrous one would be as good.
Try the 'continental' type that looks like a stirrup, where you draw the cutting blade towards you. I was introduced to them by a Dutch friend
in the 1970s and found them so easy to use that I have never touched a 'sideways' one since.
It's also unreasonable to expect us to use special pronouns and "new
names" and be harassed if we refuse to do so.
It is a matter of courtesy.
The plethora of pronouns is something I find difficult - but if I ever
met anyone who really did feel strongly about it, I would make my best
effort to get it right.
It's the notion that anyone could find children in any way sexually
attractive that offends most people.
Yes, but the ultimate underlying reason is because of the harm it does.
In the long term we need to find a way of preventing the harm so that paedophiles can be open about their tendencies and get whatever help
they need. I don't know of any way of doing this at present but it
would be a far better way of dealing with the problem than waiting until
they have done the damage and then locking them up to prevent them from
doing any further harm.
Perhaps there should be more research in that
direction.
Please don't get the wrong idea, I'm not making excuses for
paedophillia. I've seen the lasting damage it can do on several
occasions and I would love to be able to stop that damage at source.
On Sat, 25 Mar 2023 15:50:36 +0000, MB <MB@nospam.net> wrote:
[re homosexuality]
They are their own worse enemies, all the fuss when a celebrity admits
to being homosexual and that he he has tested HIV Positive, he then gets
called a 'hero' and lauded?
I've always been puzzled at the business of "coming out", effectively proclaiming one's unconventional sexual status to the world, as if it
was somehow a matter of importance to everybody else, while
simultaneously expressing a wish to be accepted on the grounds that
it's not important at all. Spot the contradiction.
One thing I don't understand is the desire for homosexual people to
get married in church. To me that is a case of having your cake and
eating it, making Christianity a pick 'n mix. If you believe the
Christian teaching then you know it teaches that a marriage is
between a man and a woman and otherwise is a sin. On the other hand,
if you don't believe the Christian teaching why do they wish to get
married in church? Just the building or a desire to show contempt?
The harm is because it's disapproved of.
On 25/03/2023 18:43, Liz Tuddenham wrote:
Max Demian <max_demian@bigfoot.com> wrote:
[...]
I haven't been able to get a right handed Lancashire peeler for ages.
The ambidextrous ones aren't as good as the peelings get stuck in the
other slot. Otherwise I don't mind "lefties". I've got a right handed
lemon squeezer, but an ambidextrous one would be as good.
Try the 'continental' type that looks like a stirrup, where you draw the cutting blade towards you. I was introduced to them by a Dutch friend
in the 1970s and found them so easy to use that I have never touched a 'sideways' one since.
I've got one of those "French peelers" but I keep scraping my fingers.
It's also unreasonable to expect us to use special pronouns and "new
names" and be harassed if we refuse to do so.
It is a matter of courtesy.
No it's not. It's a modern affectation.
The plethora of pronouns is something I find difficult - but if I ever
met anyone who really did feel strongly about it, I would make my best effort to get it right.
It's pandering to people's fine sensibilities.
No-one dares to research anything that could benefit paedophiles.
It's also unreasonable to expect us to use special pronouns and "new
names" and be harassed if we refuse to do so.
It is a matter of courtesy.
No it's not. It's a modern affectation.
No, the terminology is recent and, in some cases, may be an affectation
but being courteous and respecting someone's wishes should be universal.
Max Demian <max_demian@bigfoot.com> wrote:
[...]
Do people really choose the religion they grow up in, or it determined
by upbringing or where they are born?
There was an example in my family of someone who was brought up in a particular religion and rejected it, so upbringing isn't a totally-controlling factor.
With regard to who is allowed in, or what they are allowed to do, this
is also determined by which practices are allowed by the religion.
"Sinners" are not allowed, and the religion decides what counts as a
sin. This obviously could include homosexuality - "lying with a man as
with a woman"
Homosexual practices are not allowed but anyone who thinks homosexuality
(the condition, not the act) can be banned is either ignorant or
incredibly stupid, or both. The same applies to intersex(not a legally recognised condition in France), transgender (only recognised grudgingly
in special circumstances by the UK government) and left-handedness (not recognised in Australian schools for a very long time).
--
~ Liz Tuddenham ~
(Remove the ".invalid"s and add ".co.uk" to reply)
www.poppyrecords.co.uk
Incidentally, today said station still need Ł1100.
They are looking for a corporate sponsor, but as any adverts they can actually air have to be of a sort that is not against Christian values, that would tend to not include most companies.
Brian
On 26/03/2023 11:36, Bob Latham wrote:
One thing I don't understand is the desire for homosexual people to
get married in church. To me that is a case of having your cake and
eating it, making Christianity a pick 'n mix. If you believe the
Christian teaching then you know it teaches that a marriage is
between a man and a woman and otherwise is a sin. On the other hand,
if you don't believe the Christian teaching why do they wish to get
married in church? Just the building or a desire to show contempt?
Like many minority groups, they always want more.
The original 'civil partnership' seemed a good solution, it solved legal problems and was open to all so a non-homosexual couple might want some
of the legal advantages of the partnership over just living together.
But others wanted more.
Makes me wonder what they will want next.
There is a big difference between not being against Christian values and having to explicitly support them. Cadbury's and Rowntree were both
founded by devotedly religious families.
I suspect that they are looking for adverts that explicitly support their creed. There is a regrettabe attitude in most religious groups that theirs
is the Only True Way, and if you don't shout your support for that
particular version, you are a heretic and need to be done away with. Read
the 10 commandments in full, and you will find things like "Thou shalt not covet thy neigbbour's ass". Note, there is no prohibition against coveting one owned by a member of the tribe down the valley.
For instance, most fast food adverts don't support Christianity, but the products do not go against it. You are unlikely to find McDeadthings advertising on a Christian station, though they do carry out charity works based on religious values. The station would likely only approve an advert for a pen if it pointed out how much better it writes the Lord's words
than the opposition's pens....
On 27/03/2023 11:27, Brian Gaff wrote:
Incidentally, today said station still need Ł1100.
They are looking for a corporate sponsor, but as any adverts they can
actually air have to be of a sort that is not against Christian values,
that
would tend to not include most companies.
Brian
--
Tciao for Now!
John.
Max Demian <max_demian@bigfoot.com> wrote:
On 25/03/2023 18:43, Liz Tuddenham wrote:
Max Demian <max_demian@bigfoot.com> wrote:
It's also unreasonable to expect us to use special pronouns and "new
names" and be harassed if we refuse to do so.
It is a matter of courtesy.
No it's not. It's a modern affectation.
No, the terminology is recent and, in some cases, may be an affectation
but being courteous and respecting someone's wishes should be universal.
The plethora of pronouns is something I find difficult - but if I ever
met anyone who really did feel strongly about it, I would make my best
effort to get it right.
It's pandering to people's fine sensibilities.
It costs nothing. If it is an affectation, the person will soon get fed
up with it - and if it is their deeply-felt need, you will soon get
used to it.
No-one dares to research anything that could benefit paedophiles.
This is because people are conflating paedophillia and paedophiles.
"As a matter of politeness, I want you to address me as 'The Grand Panjandrum'."
It costs nothing. If it is an affectation, the person will soon get fed
up with it - and if it is their deeply-felt need, you will soon get
used to it.
Whose needs take priority? Those who want to be called by their "special name"; or those who have to agree to use a special form of address?
No-one dares to research anything that could benefit paedophiles.
This is because people are conflating paedophillia and paedophiles.
There's no way anyone is going to finance research into children having
sex, even with other children.
Max Demian <max_demian@bigfoot.com> wrote:
[...]
"As a matter of politeness, I want you to address me as 'The Grand Panjandrum'."
If we ever meet face-to-face, I shall do just that. I shall recognise
you because you will be running amok on a Dorset beach, frightening
dogs.
It costs nothing. If it is an affectation, the person will soon get fed up with it - and if it is their deeply-felt need, you will soon get
used to it.
Whose needs take priority? Those who want to be called by their "special name"; or those who have to agree to use a special form of address?
In general it is polite to address people by the name they have said
they would like to be called.
No-one dares to research anything that could benefit paedophiles.
This is because people are conflating paedophillia and paedophiles.
There's no way anyone is going to finance research into children having sex, even with other children.
Paedophillia isn't children having sex with children, it is adults
exploiting children for sexual purposes. If a child tried to have sex
with an adult, the adult should be able to prevent it; an adult who does
not prevet it is then regarded as just as much of a paedophile as if he
or she had instigated the encounter.
Liz Tuddenham <liz@poppyrecords.invalid.invalid> wrote:
Max Demian <max_demian@bigfoot.com> wrote:
[...]
No-one dares to research anything that could benefit paedophiles.
This is because people are conflating paedophillia and paedophiles.
There's no way anyone is going to finance research into children having sex, even with other children.
Paedophillia isn't children having sex with children, it is adults exploiting children for sexual purposes. If a child tried to have sex
with an adult, the adult should be able to prevent it; an adult who does not prevet it is then regarded as just as much of a paedophile as if he
or she had instigated the encounter.
PMFJI
Conflation of paedophilia with transgenderism is surely misguided.
IMO the recent alarm about drag artists inappropriately involving
themselves in e.g. childrens' storytime is a different matter, repugnant though it may be to mainstream opinion.
Max Demian <max_demian@bigfoot.com> wrote:
There's no way anyone is going to finance research into children having
sex, even with other children.
Paedophillia isn't children having sex with children, it is adults
exploiting children for sexual purposes. If a child tried to have sex
with an adult, the adult should be able to prevent it; an adult who does
not prevet it is then regarded as just as much of a paedophile as if he
or she had instigated the encounter.
Personally I don't find drag or pantomime dames particularly
entertaining or funny, but do we know what really happened or do we just >believe the sensational press reports? If we aren't careful we could
finish up with legistlaton that could be used to ban Christmas
pantomimes.
In general it is polite to address people by the name they have said
they would like to be called.
On 28/03/2023 18:17, Liz Tuddenham wrote:
Max Demian <max_demian@bigfoot.com> wrote:
There's no way anyone is going to finance research into children having
sex, even with other children.
Paedophillia isn't children having sex with children, it is adults exploiting children for sexual purposes. If a child tried to have sex
with an adult, the adult should be able to prevent it; an adult who does not prevet it is then regarded as just as much of a paedophile as if he
or she had instigated the encounter.
So "children" (however you define the term) aren't allowed to "have sex"
with anyone, even if they want to, can cope with it, and know whatever
the downsides are?
What about "playing doctor" and the like, or do you dismiss (and simultaneously decry) it as "just curiosity"?
Max Demian <max_demian@bigfoot.com> wrote:
On 28/03/2023 18:17, Liz Tuddenham wrote:
Max Demian <max_demian@bigfoot.com> wrote:
There's no way anyone is going to finance research into children having >>>> sex, even with other children.
Paedophillia isn't children having sex with children, it is adults
exploiting children for sexual purposes. If a child tried to have sex
with an adult, the adult should be able to prevent it; an adult who does >>> not prevet it is then regarded as just as much of a paedophile as if he
or she had instigated the encounter.
So "children" (however you define the term) aren't allowed to "have sex"
with anyone, even if they want to, can cope with it, and know whatever
the downsides are?
What about "playing doctor" and the like, or do you dismiss (and
simultaneously decry) it as "just curiosity"?
Did you read what I wrote? [Paedophillia isn't children having sex with children]
Two children playing 'doctors and nurses' is completely different from a child instigatiing sex with an adult or an adult instigating sex with a child.
On Tue, 28 Mar 2023 18:17:49 +0100, liz@poppyrecords.invalid.invalid
(Liz Tuddenham) wrote:
In general it is polite to address people by the name they have said
they would like to be called.
Names are proper nouns. All the fuss appears to be about pronouns.
I'm quite happy to address anyone by whatever they say their name is,
but I don't agree with changing the rules of grammar at the behest of
a tiny minority group that seems to want to dictate their rules to the
rest of us. For example, there is a convention that seems to have
naturally evolved that you can use plural pronouns for a singular
person if they're (there's an example) unspecified or unknown, but it
feels wrong to use them for a particular individual. The usual
understanding is that whoever is doing the talking is the one who gets
to choose the words, and even if someone else thinks they're wrong,
nobody takes very kindly to being corrected by pedants.
The fuss about pronouns is particularly strange, given that the only
ones that are gendered in the English language are the third person
singular ones, and if you were taking to someone, you would only need
to use first or second person ones, so nobody's gender need be
mentioned at all.
The choice of gender would only arise if you were
taking about someone else, who might not even be present, in which
case it would be none of their business to tell you how to conduct
your conversation.
The English language is at the root of the problem: When referring to
people there is no alternative to 'He" and "She" other than "It" which
is conventionally reserved for inanimate objects and is therefore
considered offensive. The flurry of alternative words, some made up and
some imported, is occurring to fill this deficiency.
On 30/03/2023 09:14, Liz Tuddenham wrote:
The English language is at the root of the problem: When referring to people there is no alternative to 'He" and "She" other than "It" which
is conventionally reserved for inanimate objects and is therefore considered offensive. The flurry of alternative words, some made up and some imported, is occurring to fill this deficiency.
We seem to have managed with just "he" and "she" for quite some time
without any problems.
We seem to have managed with just "he" and "she" for quite some time
without any problems.
On 30/03/2023 21:43, MB wrote:
We seem to have managed with just "he" and "she" for quite some timeFor a number of decades, where a name is ambiguous, I have been in the
without any problems.
habit of using "they" as a singular pronoun. The only problem I have is
that I have a nasty habit of calling all canines "he" and all felines
"she" until I know them well enough to be allowed to check.
That was because people who didn't fit either of those categories
were hidden, suppressed and forced to lie about their true
characteristics. Biologists recognised the facts, so did animal
breeders, but the general public were kept in ignorance by
simplistic teachings and religion-based dogma.
Now we are less ignorant, we recognise that make and female are not
the only possibilities - but so far the law and the language
haven't caught up with this.
MB <MB@nospam.net> wrote:
On 30/03/2023 09:14, Liz Tuddenham wrote:
The English language is at the root of the problem: When referring to
people there is no alternative to 'He" and "She" other than "It" which
is conventionally reserved for inanimate objects and is therefore
considered offensive. The flurry of alternative words, some made up and >>> some imported, is occurring to fill this deficiency.
We seem to have managed with just "he" and "she" for quite some time
without any problems.
That was because people who didn't fit either of those categories were hidden, suppressed and forced to lie about their true characteristics. Biologists recognised the facts, so did animal breeders, but the general public were kept in ignorance by simplistic teachings and religion-based dogma.
Now we are less ignorant, we recognise that make and female are not the
only possibilities - but so far the law and the language haven't caught
up with this.
In article <1q8femz.1rn7wgdqhj036N%liz@poppyrecords.invalid.invalid>,
Liz Tuddenham <liz@poppyrecords.invalid.invalid> wrote:
That was because people who didn't fit either of those categories
were hidden, suppressed and forced to lie about their true
characteristics. Biologists recognised the facts, so did animal
breeders, but the general public were kept in ignorance by
simplistic teachings and religion-based dogma.
Now we are less ignorant, we recognise that make and female are not
the only possibilities - but so far the law and the language
haven't caught up with this.
I'll have to show my ignorance then.
Are you telling me there are people that do not have either XX or XY chromosomes? Because unless there are then biologically everyone is
either male or female.
That does not mean I'm unaware of and don't have sympathy (in a nice
way) for people who 'feel' that they are in the wrong body or 'feel'
less connected to either state.
I'll be honest though, that does not mean that I'm happy to drop the significance of biological sex. Only women born with XX chromosomes
can have periods and can be pregnant. As far as I know, the
chromosomes you are born with, you will die with.
I've encountered two people in my life that are trans male to female.
Both are highly technical computer industry people. One is called
Sophie and the other I think was Alice, if I recall correctly. Very impressive both of them, I wish them well.
On 30/03/2023 22:12, Liz Tuddenham wrote:
MB <MB@nospam.net> wrote:
On 30/03/2023 09:14, Liz Tuddenham wrote:
The English language is at the root of the problem: When referring to >>> people there is no alternative to 'He" and "She" other than "It" which >>> is conventionally reserved for inanimate objects and is therefore
considered offensive. The flurry of alternative words, some made up and >>> some imported, is occurring to fill this deficiency.
We seem to have managed with just "he" and "she" for quite some time
without any problems.
That was because people who didn't fit either of those categories were hidden, suppressed and forced to lie about their true characteristics. Biologists recognised the facts, so did animal breeders, but the general public were kept in ignorance by simplistic teachings and religion-based dogma.
Now we are less ignorant, we recognise that make and female are not the only possibilities - but so far the law and the language haven't caught
up with this.
There is a very small number of genuinely intersex individuals, or ones
of ambiguous sex, due to chromosomal abnormalities (such as XXY and XO), defects in the hormonal system, or physical injury.
The current transgender movement is something completely different:
where biological males and females prefer to live as the opposite sex to
a greater or lesser extent.
Transgender individuals may find themselves shunned as any minority
group might.
Manipulating language will just annoy some people and not benefit anyone.
Also, not all genetic women have periods or can get pregnant, so neither >genes nor childbearing are reliable indicators of 'woman' - similarly,
not all men can father children. The whole man/woman thing is an
arbitrary reduction of a wide analogue spectrum to an oversimplified
binary approximation.
There is a very small number of genuinely intersex individuals, or onesIt is the other way around: the hormones are made by cells which are controlled by chromosomes. A hormone abnormality cannot cause an
of ambiguous sex, due to chromosomal abnormalities (such as XXY and XO), defects in the hormonal system, or physical injury.
intersex condition, although it may be a symptom of one. When you refer
to 'ambiguous sex' I presume you are thinking of visible sexual
development, not the actual sex underlying it?
On Friday, March 31, 2023 at 6:55:24 PM UTC+1, Liz Tuddenham wrote:
There is a very small number of genuinely intersex individuals, orones > of ambiguous sex, due to chromosomal abnormalities (such as XXY
and XO), > defects in the hormonal system, or physical injury. It is the other way around: the hormones are made by cells which are controlled by chromosomes. A hormone abnormality cannot cause an intersex condition, although it may be a symptom of one. When you refer to 'ambiguous sex' I presume you are thinking of visible sexual development, not the actual
sex underlying it?
Like all mammals, Homo Sapiens is a sexually dimorphic species - apart
from, as you, say a few genetic freaks which are essentially evolutionary dead-ends (a huge percentage will spontaneously abort anyway) - other
mamals would probably eat such new-borns, if they got as far as actually completeing gestation.
Demanding the use of your "approved" pronouns, to feed your mental
illness, is not acceptable behaviour and I will go out of my way to be as offensive as possible - I will not be bullied by a small deranged minority
- take it or leave it.
Out of interest, what was your name before you adopted "Liz"?
On Fri, 31 Mar 2023 18:53:49 +0100, liz@poppyrecords.invalid.invalid
(Liz Tuddenham) wrote:
Also, not all genetic women have periods or can get pregnant, so neither >genes nor childbearing are reliable indicators of 'woman' - similarly,
not all men can father children. The whole man/woman thing is an
arbitrary reduction of a wide analogue spectrum to an oversimplified
binary approximation.
The binary approximation applies to well over 99% of the population,
and has been good enough for everyday purposes for centuries. It's
hardly surprising that our language has not evolved the routine
terminology to deal with something that is so rare that nearly
everyone will never have to.
I have no problem at all with anyone whose biology, preferences, or
lifestyle makes them different from the rest of us. I expect that most
will just want to live as normal a life as possible, just like
everyone else, and I'm perfectly happy with that. Live and let live.
It's only the publicity-seeking antics of a tiny minority of what is
already a tiny minority who have recently started demanding that the
rest of us change our language and our ways, and I have no sympathy
for these troublemakers at all.
That is a foul and offensive post. As you are behaving like a troll, I
shall treat you as one and kill-file you.
That is a foul and offensive post. As you are behaving like a troll, I
shall treat you as one and kill-file you.
On 01/04/2023 11:45, Liz Tuddenham wrote:
That is a foul and offensive post. As you are behaving like a troll, I shall treat you as one and kill-file you.
Just possibly, Robin Williamson is feeling unsure of its sexual
orientation and status, so feels the needs to reinforce the stereotypes.
Liz Tuddenham wrote:
That is a foul and offensive post. As you are behaving like a troll, I shall treat you as one and kill-file you.
That is the first time I can remember you getting grief here in u.t.b or u.r.a, I don't think I see you in many other groups.
I suppose we all
noticed the name change, and (not knowing your circumstances) wondered whether your wife had forgotten to logout and you were replying using
her account, or something like that ... but I don't think anyone even mentioned it.
Now we are less ignorant, we recognise that make and female are not
the only possibilities - but so far the law and the language
haven't caught up with this.
I'll have to show my ignorance then.
Are you telling me there are people that do not have either XX or XY
chromosomes? Because unless there are then biologically everyone is
either male or female.
There are. There are loads of variants such as X alone, XXX, XYY, XXY
etc and they all manifest themselves in various ways
On Fri, 31 Mar 2023 18:53:49 +0100, Liz Tuddenham <liz@poppyrecords.invalid.invalid> wrote:
Now we are less ignorant, we recognise that make and female are not
the only possibilities - but so far the law and the language
haven't caught up with this.
I'll have to show my ignorance then.
Are you telling me there are people that do not have either XX or XY
chromosomes? Because unless there are then biologically everyone is
either male or female.
There are. There are loads of variants such as X alone, XXX, XYY, XXY etc and they all manifest themselves in various ways
So are you expecting someone to come up with an alternative to 'he' or 'she' for all these cases? If not, then what? One to cover all?
What happens if an XXX doesn't want to be lumped together with an XYY?
It's just the same as lumping all these with either 'he' or 'she' really.
Roderick Stewart <rjfs@escapetime.myzen.co.uk> wrote:
On Fri, 31 Mar 2023 18:53:49 +0100, liz@poppyrecords.invalid.invalid
(Liz Tuddenham) wrote:
Also, not all genetic women have periods or can get pregnant, so neither
genes nor childbearing are reliable indicators of 'woman' - similarly,
not all men can father children. The whole man/woman thing is an
arbitrary reduction of a wide analogue spectrum to an oversimplified
binary approximation.
The binary approximation applies to well over 99% of the population,
and has been good enough for everyday purposes for centuries. It's
hardly surprising that our language has not evolved the routine
terminology to deal with something that is so rare that nearly
everyone will never have to.
I have no problem at all with anyone whose biology, preferences, or
lifestyle makes them different from the rest of us. I expect that most
will just want to live as normal a life as possible, just like
everyone else, and I'm perfectly happy with that. Live and let live.
It's only the publicity-seeking antics of a tiny minority of what is
already a tiny minority who have recently started demanding that the
rest of us change our language and our ways, and I have no sympathy
for these troublemakers at all.
Does that also apply to wheelchair users or people with food allergies?
Why install lifts and ramps, or list the ingredients on food packets?
They are only a tiny proportion of the poulation, should we let them
suffer so that the rest of us can have an easy life and lazy thinking?.
Paul Ratcliffe <abuse@orac12.clara34.co56.uk78> wrote:
On Fri, 31 Mar 2023 18:53:49 +0100, Liz Tuddenham
<liz@poppyrecords.invalid.invalid> wrote:
Now we are less ignorant, we recognise that make and female are not
the only possibilities - but so far the law and the language
haven't caught up with this.
I'll have to show my ignorance then.
Are you telling me there are people that do not have either XX or XY
chromosomes? Because unless there are then biologically everyone is
either male or female.
There are. There are loads of variants such as X alone, XXX, XYY, XXY >>> etc and they all manifest themselves in various ways
So are you expecting someone to come up with an alternative to 'he' or 'she' >> for all these cases? If not, then what? One to cover all?
I beileve that is how it works in Finnish. The Fins have just as much difficulty remembering which pronoun to use about people when they speak English as we do remembering which 'gender' to use about inanimate
objects when speaking French. We think French is making pointless distinctions about objects, the Fins think we are making pointless distinctions about people.
What happens if an XXX doesn't want to be lumped together with an XYY?
It's just the same as lumping all these with either 'he' or 'she' really.
Exactly. The distinction is artificial in both cases, it is caused by
trying to make a binary simplification of an analogue spectrum - some
people have different mixtures of chromosomes in different organs, so
even a multi-category system will break down eventually. Worse still
is conflating categories with expectations e.g. "most women don't do
this, I have classified you as a woman, therefore you cannot this".
The male/female/neither distinction is important for breeding
purposes, but is irrelevant to most of everyday life.
It would be interesting to know what percentage of the population is genuinely affected by an unconventional sexual status, and what
percentage of that percentage is creating all the fuss. I suspect that
in the grand scheme of things the real numbers would amount to
practically nobody, and in reality everyone else would just like to
get on with their lives, but we don't hear so much about that.
In article <1q8femz.1rn7wgdqhj036N%liz@poppyrecords.invalid.invalid>,
Liz Tuddenham <liz@poppyrecords.invalid.invalid> wrote:
That was because people who didn't fit either of those categories
were hidden, suppressed and forced to lie about their true
characteristics. Biologists recognised the facts, so did animal
breeders, but the general public were kept in ignorance by
simplistic teachings and religion-based dogma.
Now we are less ignorant, we recognise that make and female are not
the only possibilities - but so far the law and the language
haven't caught up with this.
I'll have to show my ignorance then.
Are you telling me there are people that do not have either XX or XY chromosomes? Because unless there are then biologically everyone is
either male or female.
That does not mean I'm unaware of and don't have sympathy (in a nice
way) for people who 'feel' that they are in the wrong body or 'feel'
less connected to either state.
As I've said before, I think everyone should be able to do their
thing provided it does not diminish someone else's life, we should
also respect people's choices.
I'll be honest though, that does not mean that I'm happy to drop the significance of biological sex. Only women born with XX chromosomes
can have periods and can be pregnant. As far as I know, the
chromosomes you are born with, you will die with.
I've encountered two people in my life that are trans male to female.
Both are highly technical computer industry people. One is called
Sophie and the other I think was Alice, if I recall correctly. Very impressive both of them, I wish them well.
Bob.
Is it okay for a trans woman to get a job as a girl's games teacher
in a school including going in the kids changing rooms and showers? A
lot of parents would be very concerned at that.
Making provision for people with difficulties they didn't choose is in
a completely different category from pandering to the wishes of a
microscopic minority who want everyone else to change the very
language we speak, and to accept such things as biological men in
women's toilets or changing rooms.
In article <1q8femz.1rn7wgdqhj036N%liz@poppyrecords.invalid.invalid>,
Liz Tuddenham <liz@poppyrecords.invalid.invalid> wrote:
Now we are less ignorant, we recognise that make and female are not
the only possibilities - but so far the law and the language
haven't caught up with this.
I'll have to show my ignorance then.
Are you telling me there are people that do not have either XX or XY chromosomes? Because unless there are then biologically everyone is
either male or female.
That does not mean I'm unaware of and don't have sympathy (in a nice
way) for people who 'feel' that they are in the wrong body or 'feel'
less connected to either state.
As I've said before, I think everyone should be able to do their
thing provided it does not diminish someone else's life, we should
also respect people's choices.
On 31/03/2023 12:09, Bob Latham wrote:
In article <1q8femz.1rn7wgdqhj036N%liz@poppyrecords.invalid.invalid>,
  Liz Tuddenham <liz@poppyrecords.invalid.invalid> wrote:
The way I understand it, barring some very rare cases where there areNow we are less ignorant, we recognise that make and female are not
the only possibilities - but so far the law and the language
haven't caught up with this.
I'll have to show my ignorance then.
Are you telling me there are people that do not have either XX or XY
chromosomes? Because unless there are then biologically everyone is
either male or female.
extra X or Y chromosomes in the cells and some even less common chimeric states, the physical pattern for the baby is either male or female.
(Count the ribs, check for ovaries or testes).
On 31/03/2023 12:09, Bob Latham wrote:
In article <1q8femz.1rn7wgdqhj036N%liz@poppyrecords.invalid.invalid>,
Liz Tuddenham <liz@poppyrecords.invalid.invalid> wrote:
The way I understand it, barring some very rare cases where there areNow we are less ignorant, we recognise that make and female are not
the only possibilities - but so far the law and the language
haven't caught up with this.
I'll have to show my ignorance then.
Are you telling me there are people that do not have either XX or XY
chromosomes? Because unless there are then biologically everyone is
either male or female.
extra X or Y chromosomes in the cells and some even less common chimeric >states, the physical pattern for the baby is either male or female.
(Count the ribs, check for ovaries or testes) Mammals use this system, >reptiles and amphibians have a completely different arrangement.
However, the environment in the womb can affect gene expression, which
in turn can affect just how strongly male or female the baby is when
born (How fit for use are the ovaries or testes, and do they generate
the right mix of hormones), and this can affect the brain, and so, the
mind's perceptions. This does not only happen in humans, there are known >instances of even wild mammals acting in a manner not normal to their
genetic "sex". Have you never noticed one cow humping another in a
field, with udders flying all over the place?
That does not mean I'm unaware of and don't have sympathy (in a niceThis.
way) for people who 'feel' that they are in the wrong body or 'feel'
less connected to either state.
As I've said before, I think everyone should be able to do their
thing provided it does not diminish someone else's life, we should
also respect people's choices.
The one thing I ask is that you do not try to force me to comply with
your "norm", just as I won't try to force you to comply with mine.
On Sat, 1 Apr 2023 11:45:25 +0100, liz@poppyrecords.invalid.invalid
(Liz Tuddenham) wrote:
Roderick Stewart <rjfs@escapetime.myzen.co.uk> wrote:
On Fri, 31 Mar 2023 18:53:49 +0100, liz@poppyrecords.invalid.invalid
(Liz Tuddenham) wrote:
Also, not all genetic women have periods or can get pregnant, so neither >> >genes nor childbearing are reliable indicators of 'woman' - similarly,
not all men can father children. The whole man/woman thing is an
arbitrary reduction of a wide analogue spectrum to an oversimplified
binary approximation.
The binary approximation applies to well over 99% of the population,
and has been good enough for everyday purposes for centuries. It's
hardly surprising that our language has not evolved the routine
terminology to deal with something that is so rare that nearly
everyone will never have to.
I have no problem at all with anyone whose biology, preferences, or
lifestyle makes them different from the rest of us. I expect that most
will just want to live as normal a life as possible, just like
everyone else, and I'm perfectly happy with that. Live and let live.
It's only the publicity-seeking antics of a tiny minority of what is
already a tiny minority who have recently started demanding that the
rest of us change our language and our ways, and I have no sympathy
for these troublemakers at all.
Does that also apply to wheelchair users or people with food allergies?
Why install lifts and ramps, or list the ingredients on food packets?
They are only a tiny proportion of the poulation, should we let them
suffer so that the rest of us can have an easy life and lazy thinking?.
Making provision for people with difficulties they didn't choose is in
a completely different category from pandering to the wishes of a
microscopic minority who want everyone else to change the very
language we speak,
and to accept such things as biological men in
women's toilets or changing rooms.
Lifts and wheelchair ramps don't inconvenience or cause offence to
anyone, so not surprisingly I haven't seen anyone protesting about
them. Compare this with the situation where a man convicted as a
criminal declares he's a woman and gets himself sent to to a women's
prison,
or a bunch of rowdies will prevent someone speaking at a
booked event if the speaker is known to have an opinion on the
subject. It's probably not the whole story, but this sort of thing is
what is getting all the publicity.
It would be interesting to know what percentage of the population is genuinely affected by an unconventional sexual status,
and what
percentage of that percentage is creating all the fuss.
I suspect that
in the grand scheme of things the real numbers would amount to
practically nobody, and in reality everyone else would just like to
get on with their lives, but we don't hear so much about that.
On 03/04/2023 10:30, Liz Tuddenham wrote:
"Biological men" (presumably you mean someone who appears to have male external sex organs) have been using women's toilets for years.
Have they? I haven't tried. I might be thrown out by the wimmin.
"Biological women" have been using men's toilets for years.
I've seen that; and also biological little girls, brought in by their fathers, which is OK, but a bit of a cheek, as I think someone would
object if I /chose/ to wang my todger in their direction.
As far as I
know there has never been a problem and it is perfectly legal. Combined toilets are the real answer: they are cheaper to build, you don't need
as many of them and they work perfectly well wherever they are
installed. In countries where they are quite normal, there have been no reported incidents.
Perhaps you have forgotten the convenience of urinals.
Single-occupancy changing rooms give more privacy and get around any problems completely.
More expensive to build and take up more space. I don't know how many of
them there are as I don't indulge in sporting activities and never
learnt to swim.
"Biological men" (presumably you mean someone who appears to have male external sex organs) have been using women's toilets for years.
"Biological women" have been using men's toilets for years.
As far as I
know there has never been a problem and it is perfectly legal. Combined toilets are the real answer: they are cheaper to build, you don't need
as many of them and they work perfectly well wherever they are
installed. In countries where they are quite normal, there have been no reported incidents.
Single-occupancy changing rooms give more privacy and get around any problems completely.
"Biological men" (presumably you mean someone who appears to have male
external sex organs) have been using women's toilets for years.
Have they? I haven't tried. I might be thrown out by the wimmin.
"Biological women" have been using men's toilets for years.
I've seen that; and also biological little girls, brought in by their >fathers, which is OK, but a bit of a cheek, as I think someone would
object if I /chose/ to wang my todger in their direction.
It's not what you are, it's how you behave.
"Biological men" (presumably you mean someone who appears to have male external sex organs) have been using women's toilets for years.
"Biological women" have been using men's toilets for years. As far as I
know there has never been a problem and it is perfectly legal. Combined toilets are the real answer: they are cheaper to build, you don't need
as many of them and they work perfectly well wherever they are
installed. In countries where they are quite normal, there have been no reported incidents.
.... I don't know
if they do this everywhere or it's just Liverpool.
In article <1q8m58a.140cpto1e4tvqkN%liz@poppyrecords.invalid.invalid>,
Liz Tuddenham <liz@poppyrecords.invalid.invalid> wrote:
It's not what you are, it's how you behave.
Interesting.
Can I take it from that then that you do not consider yourself to be
a woman and may indeed agree with a current definition used my many,
"adult human biological female"?
Occasionally late in the evening in a crowded pub, women will use the
Gents because there's a queue for the Ladies. I've seen this myself,
and once a female colleague told me this was her normal procedure
because she could nearly always get a cubicle straight away. In these circumstances, generally everyone is too drunk to care. I don't know
if they do this everywhere or it's just Liverpool.
I doubt whether combined toilets are cheaper to build,
men's toilets
must be much cheaper to build than women's and can handle a large number
of customers in the same time.
On 03/04/2023 10:30, Liz Tuddenham wrote:
"Biological men" (presumably you mean someone who appears to have male
external sex organs) have been using women's toilets for years.
"Biological women" have been using men's toilets for years. As far as I
know there has never been a problem and it is perfectly legal. Combined
toilets are the real answer: they are cheaper to build, you don't need
as many of them and they work perfectly well wherever they are
installed. In countries where they are quite normal, there have been no
reported incidents.
But not a regular basic - I am sure we have all see someone come out of
the public toilets and look up at the sign as they leave because they
had been in the wrong one by accident.
I doubt whether combined toilets are cheaper to build, men's toilets
must be much cheaper to build than women's and can handle a large number
of customers in the same time.
I have always thought the easiest answer is to put in a few more
disabled toilets and so solve two problems.
Max Demian <max_demian@bigfoot.com> wrote:
On 03/04/2023 10:30, Liz Tuddenham wrote:
"Biological women" have been using men's toilets for years.
I've seen that; and also biological little girls, brought in by their
fathers, which is OK, but a bit of a cheek, as I think someone would
object if I /chose/ to wang my todger in their direction.
Do you think that because you happen to be in a Gents toilet it gives
you the right to deliberately expose yourself to little girls - or
anyone else for that matter?. If you started behaving like that, even
if it was only to other men, I wouldn't be surprised if they took
offense and threw you out or punched you in the face!
This is what gives men a bad name and makes life difficult for
transwomen, who get tarred with the same brush, even though many of them
are physically indistinguishable from genetic women.
Again, it's not what you are, it's how you behave.
...it's my todger, and I think
I should be the one who decides who sees it, not fathers of daughters.
That's what I meant by people objecting. But it's my todger, and I think
I should be the one who decides who sees it, not fathers of daughters.
They can always take their precious princesses behind the building.
<https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vvH1LLZeef4>
"I'm a leedy; I do leedies' things."
If you restrict 'Woman' to mean 'adult biological female', you have
to define the biology of female.
In article <1q8ma7q.1ehl17eixmyi8N%liz@poppyrecords.invalid.invalid>,
Liz Tuddenham <liz@poppyrecords.invalid.invalid> wrote:
If you restrict 'Woman' to mean 'adult biological female', you have
to define the biology of female.
No, you don't. You're trying to muddy the waters, I understand why.
For the vast majority of people 'adult biological female' is fine.
I sympathise with your extra complication in life and you should be
respected and left alone to live as you wish.
However, I also respect the position of girls and women who need to
feel safe from male intrusion at certain times.
Women's sports would be destroyed by allowing former men who had the
the "poison" hormones for years to compete. So I don't agree with
that.
Girls gym teacher is also a no no for me.
Toilets are difficult, I don't have an answer for that if I'm honest.
Some people will have their comfort and security diminished whatever
is done.
Girls gym teacher is also a no no for me.
I can't comment on that because I don't know what the rules are
regarding male gym teachers. My only contact with this was a lesbian
school friend of my sister who became a gym teacher at a very
prestigious school. She was a very nice person, happily partnered and
not at all predatory - but a predatory lesbian in that position might
have posed a much bigger risk to the girls than a well-behaved male or >transwoman gym teacher.
On Tue, 4 Apr 2023 10:34:33 +0100, liz@poppyrecords.invalid.invalid
(Liz Tuddenham) wrote:
Girls gym teacher is also a no no for me.
I can't comment on that because I don't know what the rules are
regarding male gym teachers. My only contact with this was a lesbian >school friend of my sister who became a gym teacher at a very
prestigious school. She was a very nice person, happily partnered and
not at all predatory - but a predatory lesbian in that position might
have posed a much bigger risk to the girls than a well-behaved male or >transwoman gym teacher.
Hmm. Not sure about that. No lesbian, however predatory, would ever be
able to get one of the girls pregnant.
On Tue, 4 Apr 2023 10:34:33 +0100, liz@poppyrecords.invalid.invalid
(Liz Tuddenham) wrote:
Girls gym teacher is also a no no for me.
I can't comment on that because I don't know what the rules are
regarding male gym teachers. My only contact with this was a lesbian
school friend of my sister who became a gym teacher at a very
prestigious school. She was a very nice person, happily partnered and
not at all predatory - but a predatory lesbian in that position might
have posed a much bigger risk to the girls than a well-behaved male or
transwoman gym teacher.
Hmm. Not sure about that. No lesbian, however predatory, would ever be
able to get one of the girls pregnant.
On 04/04/2023 12:04, Roderick Stewart wrote:
On Tue, 4 Apr 2023 10:34:33 +0100, liz@poppyrecords.invalid.invalid
(Liz Tuddenham) wrote:
Girls gym teacher is also a no no for me.
I can't comment on that because I don't know what the rules are
regarding male gym teachers. My only contact with this was a lesbian
school friend of my sister who became a gym teacher at a very
prestigious school. She was a very nice person, happily partnered and
not at all predatory - but a predatory lesbian in that position might
have posed a much bigger risk to the girls than a well-behaved male or
transwoman gym teacher.
Hmm. Not sure about that. No lesbian, however predatory, would ever be
able to get one of the girls pregnant.
I would have thought that "men" watching the girlies in the showers
might be more of an issue...
They don't show 'Little Britain' anymore, not that it was
particularly funny way back then when it was new(ish).
Quite apart from knocking transvestism, it took a poke at
disability too, both physical and mental. Then there was
the casual blackface racism; making fun of obesity; the list
goes on and on.
Max Demian <max_demian@bigfoot.com> wrote:
On 04/04/2023 12:04, Roderick Stewart wrote:
On Tue, 4 Apr 2023 10:34:33 +0100, liz@poppyrecords.invalid.invalid
(Liz Tuddenham) wrote:
Girls gym teacher is also a no no for me.
I can't comment on that because I don't know what the rules are
regarding male gym teachers. My only contact with this was a lesbian
school friend of my sister who became a gym teacher at a very
prestigious school. She was a very nice person, happily partnered and >>>> not at all predatory - but a predatory lesbian in that position might
have posed a much bigger risk to the girls than a well-behaved male or >>>> transwoman gym teacher.
Hmm. Not sure about that. No lesbian, however predatory, would ever be
able to get one of the girls pregnant.
I would have thought that "men" watching the girlies in the showers
might be more of an issue...
...or lesbian teachers? ...or gay male teachers in a boys' school?
The simplest way would be for the teacher to appoint one of the pupils
as a 'monitor' (or 'prefect') to keep the others under control, then
there would be no need for the teacher to go into the showers or
changing rooms and there could be no accusations made.
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 297 |
| Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
| Uptime: | 106:29:38 |
| Calls: | 6,662 |
| Calls today: | 4 |
| Files: | 12,209 |
| Messages: | 5,335,407 |