Violence Against Women

Eats I have avoided saying this for some time and have kept my tongue. But a number of your threads have this same method of posting something inflammatory and then waiting for the bunfight to ensue. Why?

You repeatedly come across as anti trans, anti man, and at times seemingly even anti woman who dosn't agree with you. Just what is it you are seeking here? I think you are coming from a place of personal pain and resentment, but there are ways of having a reasonable discussion.

In the words of Dragons Den ... "I'm out"

at Pan

Message from MNHQ - "Oh no, not this shit again!"

Gender dysphoria is a neurological disorder, not a political football.

A person could frame this illness in terms of 'women mutilate themselves so they that they can grow penises and escape male violence' but... not if they wanted to say anything meaningful.

What exactly is new about it? I am fairly sure all aspects of people changing gender was poured over adnausem a few weeks back.

Or is the difference that some women do not want to be women and somehow that means men are attacking and mutilating them after being asked to do so by the former women. These former women incidentally go through months and months of psychological examination to weed out those that are either confused and unhappy, or those that have some psychological damage that is at the root of their desire to change. Only after satisfying those external examiners will any modification be carried out. Seems perfectly reasonable to me that no attack or anti women action is happening, rather a surgical procedure that has been proven to be needed by the individual concerned. It also cannot be against women as exactly the same is on offer to male who wish to become women.

I think this is a new angle as the article is talking about FtM whereas every other bunfight discussion I've seen on here has focussed on MtF which presents an entirely different set of problems (or not, depending on your POV) for women.

I think the author has a point worthy of discussion but the tone of the article, together with the use of the grim images is IMO really insensitive.

I've avoided commenting on any of your recent threads OP but imo you've gone too far this time.

Agree with Pan there's definitely an interesting discussion to be had but that is clearly not your intention.

That link is vile.

Reported and hidden.

Have asked mnhq to add something to thread title or op to say link has graphic images.

I don't agree, I think it's transphobic bollocks. I also think your link should come with a warning as some might not want to see the graphic images.

I read it, but can't comment one way or another. It's a subject I have no experience or understanding of