Sharron

I see we’ve lost the posters who were at such pains to understand what Sharron truly meant

Perhaps they understand now?

One said (I’m paraphrasing) “since when did any trans person believe they could change their chromosomes?”

If they are women, then all of them!

The incoherence is embarrassing.

Transwomen are women, but still have male chromosomes? But woman is an adult human female defined by chromosomes, in which case a transwomen is simultaneously an human female, and an adult human male.

And of course the yawning, canyon like hole in the entire issue, is the definition of the word woman. They want it to mean something social, but are never, ever prepared to tell you what.

Because obviously the entire argument will go up in a puff of smoke.

Ugh, some of the pompous, obtuse replies (from men especially) are making me so angry.

One said (I’m paraphrasing) “since when did any trans person believe they could change their chromosomes?”

But surely parroting TWAW (and TMAM) amounts to virtually the same fucking thing? It literally stops one micro-step short of declaring their chromosomes have bloody changed. Aaaargh!

She’s taking legal advice over his tweet too. Good.

Haha Owen Jones. Never heard of him

He will be frothing now 💪😂😂😂😂🤣🤣🤣

Wow I’d never heard of him until yesterday

That’ll cut deep

Sharron is making me die laughing!

On the Sanctimonious Morph:

Wow I’d never heard of him until yesterday

twitter.com/sharrond62/status/1145962936172724224

I know someone who is offended because she is infertile and how does she fit into this and aren’t trans people just the same.
I think Sharron is just trying to use it as an example that’s all of what basic biology is.

Strange this person when she goes to buy a new pet doesn’t ask for one created by 2 bitches.

Illuminatingly OvaHere, not a single comment, in any way, alludes to homophobia or indeed, homosexuality at all, under that article.

Not one person who isn't determined to shut Sharron up, misinterprets what she has said.

The fact is that people overwhelmingly agree with her, and they all have thousands of upvotes.

The Mail have picked up on this

www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7202277/Former-Olympic-swimmer-Sharron-Davies-sparks-transgender-row.html

The point underlying Sharron's argument, and the reason why procreation is important is this: if we lived in a world where we were all hermaphrodites, or where we somehow reproduced asexually, then the concept of binary sexes (obviously) wouldn't exist.

So the entire basis of our conceptualisation of binary sexes, and all the baggage that goes alone with it, is not just founded upon the facts of reproduction, it wouldn't exist without it. Which is what TRAs and their allies are so desperate to pretend isn't true.

im aware that she isnt talking about gay people however all those "dumb asses on twitter" clearly also took the same context of the homophobic analogy.

They didn't. Not a single one did that. Do you ever read Sharron's timeline and the people on it??

They are deliberately picking out the words island and same-sex to talk about an entirely different scenario so they can pretend Sharron meant something completely different and abuse her for it.

The fact that Sharron had zero idea people might be able to pretend it's homophobic, shows her intention.

Sharron also mentions what those same people consider heterosexuality, in terms of a transwoman and a man on the same island. I thought that concluding a heterosexual relationship, in the trans ideology, is really a homosexual relationship, was transphobic?

This isn't about sexual orientation, none of it. It's about biological sex.

The only surprising thing about the tweet is the number of people who seriously appear to consider that no one can see through their cringingly transparent bullshit.

Sharron is the biggest thorn in the trans ideology, ever. She's right, knowledgeable and speaks directly from irrefutable, personal experience.

The fact that she is determined to remain polite, and unabusive and with a core of steel is further testament to this woman.

☝️

Lang nails it.

And this entire episode is 100% characteristic of the bullshit sophistry of this entire #nodebate that finally is now a debate, one where, believe it or not, bullshit sophistry means we’re actually having to debate that there are two sexes.

Next up: is water wet? Maybe it isn’t. Maybe it’s only wet because we say it is.

Anyway, for the interests of honesty and because stating facts is never wrong. I'm off to go tell disabled people that they would die if they were left on an island, and that they cant have babies.

Would you like a list of disabled mothers on this board? You can report us for wrong think or some shit.

The Woke can fuck off.

Indeed they can. Not only are the Woke on the "wrong side of history" they are also on the wrong side of the law.

For the record, UK case law states that sex is a congruence of chromosomes, gonads and genitals. [To this I would add gametes.]

"In other words, the law should adopt, in the first place, the first three of the doctors’ criteria, ie: the chromosomal, gonadal and genital tests, and, if all three are congruent, determine the sex for the purpose of marriage accordingly, and ignore any operative intervention. "

Corbett V Corbett

www.pfc.org.uk/caselaw/Corbett%20v%20Corbett.pdf

Beyond that the UK Equality Act 2010 defines the sexes thus:

man = a male of any age;
woman = a female of any age.

So the Woke should quite simply STFU!

It's actually homophobic to not be clear that if a homosexual couple want to reproduce, then they will require at least a sperm donor or a surrogate. And which of the two depends on their sex. If people also have infertility issues, then further assistance will be required.

It's also homophobic, frankly, to not acknowledge that homosexuality, by decoupling the primary evolutionary purpose of sex from secondary purposes puts sex on a different basis to heterosexual coupling which can only do this by dint of age, or with chemical or surgical intervention. It's not homophobic to point out that a gay couple, however enthusiastically or frequently they shag, will never produce a baby by that method. Most gay people (apart from OJ obviously) realised this at an early age, and got their heads round the I don't need contraception cos I'm gay idea -- or perhaps OJ would like to claim he asks all his potential partners about contraception because he wouldn't dare to assume their sex based on their presented gender...........

misunderstandings of messages happen, apparently when i do it reveals a wider prejudice

Nope. Just demonstrating how easy it is to wilfully misinterpret someone’s words

I could go off on how you’re perpetuating a disablist troupe [sic]. If I wanted to misrepresent you

She was pointing out that the entire Woke class is pretending to have forgotten how babies are made in its rush to deny biological sex.

I know that. Sharron knows that. Owen knows that. The entire Wokerati doing performative outrage knows that.

Bad faith interpretations are being made in order to intimidate Sharron from further speaking on the topic of sex and its importance to securing the rights of women.

It's coercive control.

The Woke can fuck off.

thats my point, we are aware of the biology. I dont need people to tell me that i cant concieve, and yes it would be accurate but un necessary.

Its unnecessary during a discussion on biology?

I'm off to go tell disabled people that they would die if they were left on an island, and that they cant have babies

For a start, this is part of a wider discussion. No one has walked up to a transwoman and pointed that they cant produce a baby unless they have sex with a biological female. If you were having a discussion about living on an island, obviously you may discuss wether certain disabilities would prevent that. Would you sit and pretend someone with serve physical disabilities who needs round the clock care, can survive on their own?

Also disabled people can have kids

Disabled people can also survive on an island. Some wouldnt. Just like some non disabled people wouldnt. Not sure i would with my anti depressants.

My mum is disabled, she wouldnt survive without her medication and someone to fetch water and bring food. A fact she is very aware of.

My post wasnt about the wider trans implications, it was about a poorly worded tweet that came across as a homophobic troupe.
And yes misunderstandings of messages happen, apparently when i do it reveals a wider prejudice, when she does it its because people are trying to sabotage her and are threatened by her.

And presumably Fallifrain, if you understand the biological differences between males and females, you understand that males have no business attempting to access the special measures put in place by society to counter the disadvantage and discrimination women suffer on account of their biology?

I appreciate the use of blanket term disabled confused my point

or revealed your prejudice?

im aware that she isnt talking about gay people however all those "dumb asses on twitter" clearly also took the same context of the homophobic analogy.

Its way more likely that they are pretending to find it offensive in order to obfuscate Sharron’s point. Perhaps you are doing the same?

Ali- thats my point, we are aware of the biology. I dont need people to tell me that i cant concieve, and yes it would be accurate but un necessary.

Ah so telling gay people they'd die out is fine, but not people with physical barriers to conception?

I appreciate the use of blanket term disabled confused my point.