Guardian: weaponised emotional blackmail from 14yo 'trans' athlete

[teawamutu]

The Guardian's rearguard action on reality continues. Apparently the problem is not the parents and authorities who conspired to lie to this boy, coddle his delusions, disadvantage all girls around him in the service of his own wishful thinking etc etc etc: it's definitely the people who pointed it out:
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2026/jun/17/trans-athlete-no-one-should-face-vicious-attacks

I am prepared to feel a little sorry for the kid, who couldn't have been exposed like this if the useful idiots around him had done their fucking jobs. But the Grauniad can fuck off with the tired 'beee kiiiind' shit as a solution. Been there, binned the t-shirt. We want our shit back.

But you think it’s fine for a male who is saving up for surgery to modify his body to appear feminine to be in there?

No, there are people who believe they are someone else without any of the reincarnation stuff. When I was a kid, there was a man on our street who believed he was god, for example. Do you believe they are who they say they are or not?

Being trans is a belief and not a fact. No one can be the opposite sex therefore it’s a delusion and that is a mental illness. If you believe trans people are who they say they are why don’t you believe that my neighbour was god or that my nephew is a puppy? Neither are any more possible than a man being a woman.

Hmm but you are playing with words.

You were asked about males (biological category) and replied about men.

For many trans activists this is a psychological, rather than a biological category (sounds like absolute bollocks to me) but I am repeatedly assured by those who believe in gender theory that it is a type of mind that makes a man or woman, and not their physical body and its reproductive category.

So until I understand what you mean by “men and women”, I suspect that it’s just word games to avoid discussing the harder reality.

I’m not forced to go to church. I’m not forced to believe in a God I don’t believe in. I’m not forced not to work on Christmas Day or Easter if I work in industries that don’t close those days. And those days are not forced to be religious. My Muslim friend loves Christmas. Does the whole traditional thing.

Britain does not force me to follow Christianity, even if it may be set up to follow traditions relating to Christianity, which actually supplanted traditional religious customs that existed before Christianity arrived here.

Your religion tells me I must follow chosen pronouns that don’t conform to people’s actual sex. Your religion refuses to name women but says “people” who get pregnant, your religion says I have to fill in GOVERNMENT FORMS about whether a gender identity I don’t believe in conforms to the sex I was “assigned” at birth. Your religion tells me that a man in a dress, even if he does nothing else, is a woman if he says he is.

None of this is scientific fact. None of this is anything I believe in, yet I am forced to go along with it.

If that’s not a religion, what is it?

Cis women are cis women because the dictionary says so. And as I said before, cis is really only used in the context of discussing gender identity issues. No need to use it in contexts outside that.

So where should Trans women that are convicted rapists be locked up then?
i don't think you can really sustain the people are who they say they are argument can you?

You're not forced to go along with believing that trans women are women. For example, everyone must now use the loo and changing room that accords with their assigned-at-sex birth. No one's forcing you to use particular pronouns either.

You do know definitions in the dictionary can and do change over time and that dictionaries are as prone to being politicized as anything else.

Does this mean that when the only definition of a woman in the dictionary was “adult human female” that transwomen were actually men? Did they only become women when the dictionary updated its definitions?

Since they are criminals who are convicted of rape, they've forfeited their right to be believed that they are who they say they are.

No indeed, because it is part of the belief system that is gender ideology. It arises from a particular framing of the world. For those who don’t share these beliefs, it is a nonsense word and unnecessary.

First, you misunderstand. I'm not suggesting trans people think their way into being the opposite sex, I am saying if you believe they genuinely are the opposite sex mind in the wrong body, you are saying the minds of the sexes are meaningfully different. You are accepting that some ways of thinking and feeling are right for a man or boy and others are right for a woman or girl. You are accepting boys and girls exist abd are different, but using the sexist construct of mental gender over the simple one of physical sex.

Secondly. So what is this FEELING?

Why does FEELING like your body ahould have been female override the reality that it is in fact male?

I'm 5'10. If I FEEL shorter than average, does that make me interchangeable with someone who is 5'1? Will her trousers fit my legs because I FEEL they should?

Can you see the problem here? You haven't really explained at all why your boy is actually a girl, or has anything in common with girls at all. You've just decided his FEELING that he is like them matters more than their reality that he is not.

Another question for you. Is a trans "girl" actually a girl - which unavoidably means you do accept there is a meaningful, defining difference in how "boys" think and how "girls" think, or is a trans girl a boy who believes he is a girl, so to be kind you are happy to pretend that is true?

It's genuinely interesting how transwomen are overrepresented in male-dominated careers like IT. Overrepresented to a quite frankly astronomical degree. The same is true of a lot of male-dominated hobbies too.

But if people are who they say they are then they are that thing no matter what they do. You can’t have it both ways.

😂😂😂😂😂

Well then trans women is the phrase we use to describe men who are pretending to be women. Not a thing, but it’s in the dictionary.

BTW as someone who worked on the Oxford English Dictionary, are you aware that it’s a usage dictionary? Yes it has definitions, but it is really a record of when words entered the language and how they have changed over time. It’s really a historical record rather than a definitive book on what words mean for ever and ever and ever.

Say something often enough and it will end up in the OED,

Yes, it’s extremely surprising, given the genderist worldview, isn’t it?

Were they who they said they were before they raped?

If so, at what point did they become men again? When they committed the act, or when they thought about it?

If not, what happened to believing people are who they say they are?

No, you wouldn't. To answer my question, all you need is a simple yes or no: is it ok that an intact biological male is hired to supervise young girls undressed and showering, because he has said some words?

Yes or no? Any obfuscation will be an answer in itself.

To answer your question of minds, well, there's a massive range, isn't there? You get women who are not stereotypically female at all, women who are, and everything in between, and the reverse is also true for cismen.

I suppose that a transwoman must feel themselves to be very stereotypically feminine. I wouldn't know, not being one. The trans women who stand out tend to be the ones dressed in miniskirts and heels etc. but I'm sure there must be transwomen who don't want to wear that stuff. It's very hard for me to say, not being inside their minds.

Do RTFT, the subject is a boy who cheats. He also wants more help to continue cheating.

But if that’s the case you’re implying you can become a woman by becoming a sexist stereotype. Not very feminist, is it? Or very logical.

It would be much more progressive to just be a man who likes stereotypically feminine things, no?

Not OK. And he's not a biological male. Having a penis doesn't necessarily mean you are a biological male.

The dictionary also defines a slut.

Does that mean it's fine and neutral to tell someone they are a slut because they meet that definition? Because the dictionary says so?

Or do you recognise that "slut" carries with it a value judgement that is only meaningful in a certain belief system, and women outside that belief system are entirely justified in finding that label offensive even if they do "meet the definition" because they do not judge themselves by that arbitrary standard?

The dictionary has only ‘said’ this since 1997 according to the OED.

So what were women called for the thousands of years before then?

Answers on a postcard …

I would believe the anaconda. I would get the anaconda an appropriately-sized gerbil wheel and some gerbil friends

You do realise the Anaconda would kill and eat the gerbils?

Similar situation, really.

Edited to say I should have read the entire thread.

Well, it's the chicken and the egg, isn't it? Do you become a woman by becoming a sexist stereotype (no) or do you express a feminine identity that's already there by adopting modes of dress that men, traditionally, do not wear?

FWIW, I don't think that being trans is necessarily logical. I think it's one of those things that defies logic. Like many things in this world.