Sure sounds like censorship to me...

[Zigenare]

They aren't. But that's not what the debate is about. It's about men thinking they have the right to access women's single sex spaces. Maybe a better question is why do you think they deserve that right?

This might help you understand JKS' predicament/predilection...

[al_cam]

Free speech is different to hate speech. I personally think Linehan needs psychiatric help.
He spends all his hours on Twitter spouting hate to trans people. I can only assume his show would be the same.

Here's some examples I saw on my feed this morning. Think about if this was against black people -

[wattaj]

You know us women can speak up for ourselves?

Or do you only listen to other men?

I do. And you know that are very welcome. But I also think that it's equally important for men to call out other [men | non-gendered designation ] when we see them taking an inappropriate position. I hope that you would agree.

I listen to all points of view... or, at least, try to.

[KinooOrKinog]

They aren't. But that's not what the debate is about. It's about men thinking they have the right to access women's single sex spaces. Maybe a better question is why do you think they deserve that right?

Free speech is different to hate speech. I personally think Linehan needs psychiatric help.
He spends all his hours on Twitter spouting hate to trans people. I can only assume his show would be the same.

Here's some examples I saw on my feed this morning. Think about if this was against black people -

The thing is, I think the vast majority of actual transsexuals just want to quietly get on with their lives and not draw attention to themselves. Those are not the people Graham Linehan is against. He's against the trans rights activists, AGP's, groomers, etc. All of these people are trying to exploit a loophole they've found. These people have discovered that if they put on a wig and some lipstick & say they're a woman, then they can pretty much do what they want and if anyone says otherwise, they're 'transphobic'. I agree that some of his tweets are a bit much, but he's angry.

[wattaj]

The ends justify the means? Where have we heard that before?

You seem, if one takes a quick look at your reply further down this post, to be keen on "context" in support of your position, so let me reply in kind: within the context of "the experimental medicalisation of children; the insertion of mediocre, male-bodied people into women's sport; and the wanton destruction of safeguarding around single sex spaces", then yes, I do believe that Linehan's means justify the ends.

Expanding that narrow point out into a wider context, thereby hinting toward other, far more unsavoury, historical events is unhelpful... and only goes to weaken your argument: it looks as though you are reaching for a win that will not come.

"am I so out of touch, no it's the children who are wrong"

Well, yes, quite frankly. And especially so where one can see that these people take an ideological position that is at odds with objective reality.

You're trying to play semantics, poorly. Is Richard Dawkins atheist beliefs protected? Does his atheist beliefs inherently include negative opinions on religions?

On your first point: yes, they are. Once again, please refer back to the EA2010. These are not "semantics"; these are points of principle in an open and democratic society.

On your second point: negative opinions are not inherent in atheist philosophy but some do hold those opinions. I can't speak to Dawkin's position, but some of his material would strongly hint at him being one of those.

Which brings us nicely back to your non-answer to what is, for most people, a clearly binary question with one obvious answer...

Well that isn't a simple question is it. What is the context? Why is it inherently wrong for an underage girl to see a male bodied person naked but it's not inherently wrong for a underage boy to? Is a father not able to take his daughter to the swimming pool and get changed together?

The answer to the Staniland Question is the clearest indicator of ideological capture in the gender debate: most people would answer "No" without hesitation, prevarication, or deviation. They generally understand that the "context" excludes a close, non-familial connection to the male in question and, instead, that the perpetrator is a stranger, or other loose, social connection. Other people, as you have done, dance around the question looking for an exit strategy and end up looking a) silly, or b) suspect.

It is a simple question. Only simpletons think otherwise.

[wattaj]

...I agree that some of his tweets are a bit much, but he's angry.

Rightly so, I would say.

[NotAllThere]

Different people and different cultures don't have the same hang ups on it as many anglos.

Racist as well. Nice.

So we stick a sign 'Biological women only'. Tap ourselves on the back for protecting our womenfolk.

Now what? Mr Predator can't read.

First, he probably can, well enough. Secondly, as soon as he goes into the protected space and strips off, he's readily identifiable. Which is really rather the whole point.

Of course no one can't tell if he's a predator or a harmless transwoman, but the fact is protecting 50% of the population at the expense of a tiny minority seems rather more appropriate than protecting a tiny minority at the expense of 50% of the population.

[mudskipper]

if I put on lippy and a dress can I wander round the ladies changing room with my bits out?

Does this happen? This sounds like the sort of theoretical argument "well that could happen!" rather then something that actually happens.

[Zigenare]

Does this happen? This sounds like the sort of theoretical argument "well that could happen!" rather then something that actually happens.

You mean like this?
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...cker-room.html

or this?

https://eu.usatoday.com/story/news/n...room/80501904/

or this?

https://www.thepinknews.com/2023/02/...e-charge-ohio/

[KinooOrKinog]

Does this happen? This sounds like the sort of theoretical argument "well that could happen!" rather then something that actually happens.

Or like either of these?

https://www.latimes.com/california/s...rans-woman-spa


https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...ans-women.html