In message <tv6rac$2vrar$5@dont-email.me>, at 11:22:52 on Sun, 19 Mar
2023, Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> remarked:
>>>>>>> Another interesting one that came up with Liz Truss: Who was the
>>>>>>> last person to serve as Prime Minister who never led a party at a
>>>>>>> general election (either winning to become PM or losing, ending
>>>>>>> their time as PM)?
>>>>>> Off the cuff: Gordon Brown and Rishi Sunak; earlier Callaghan. And
>>>>>> Boris's/May/Major's first term, depending on whether there's an
>>>>>> invisible "previously" in front of "led".
>>>>>
>>>>> Brown and Callaghan both led their parties into General elections and
>>>>> lost (2010 and 1979 respectively).
>>>>
>>>> Callaghan became PM in 1976, so wasn't "on the ballot paper" at a prior
>>>> general election. Ditto Brown's career.
>>>>
>>>>> Major, May and Johnson all led their parties into General Elections and
>>>>> won[1] (1992, 2017 and 2019 respectively). While Sunak hasn't done so
>>>>> yet, it seems fairly likely that he will remain both party leader and
>>>>> PM going into whatever is the next GE.
>>>>
>>>> But none of them were "on the ballot paper" at the GE before they became
>>>> PM, although obviously all but Rishi (and I forgot Truss, which is very
>>>> tempting on many grounds) haven't [yet] won a GE as leader.
>>>
>>> You failed to read the question: "Who was the last person to serve as Prime
>>> Minister who never led a party at a general election (either winning to
>>> become PM or losing, ending their time as PM)?"
>>
>> I read it, and then responded in detail, explaining why I written what I
>> did. Perhaps you could go back and review that? Or maybe not, as perhaps
>> that encourages you to start another argument.
>
>It was a clever question that most people understood, but couldn't answer
>correctly. You, on the other hand, didn't even understand the question.
>Instead of admitting your obvious mistake, you inevitably start an argume
>to 'prove' you were right.

You are the one arguing. Perpetuating the misrepresentation of what I
said.
--
Roland Perry

On Sun, 19 Mar 2023 10:34:03 -0000 (UTC), Muttley@dastardlyhq.com
wrote:

>On Sun, 19 Mar 2023 04:30:52 +0000
>Charles Ellson <charlesellson@btinternet.com> wrote:
>>On Sat, 18 Mar 2023 10:08:40 -0000 (UTC), Muttley@dastardlyhq.com
>>wrote:
>>
>>>On Fri, 17 Mar 2023 21:29:52 +0000
>>>Charles Ellson <charlesellson@btinternet.com> wrote:
>>>>On Fri, 17 Mar 2023 16:36:21 -0000 (UTC), Sam Wilson
>>>><ukr@dummy.wislons.fastmail.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>>> On the BBC News last night they mentioned that SNP membership has
>>plummeted
>>>>>> in 3 years to 70K. Oh dear.
>>>>>
>>>>Ah, "plummeted", another meaningless media buzzword. A lot of that
>>>
>>>Its certainly overused, but losing 40% of your members in 3 years can hardly
>>>be decribed as much else.
>>>
>>How many have other parties lost/gained in the same period? What has
>>been the longer term trend for each party? Have the other parties got
>>reliable figures for their Scottish memberships?
>
>Who cares? The SNP lost 40% of its members in 3 years. End of. You can't
>explain it away as anything other than a disaster.
>
You can explain it as many things but you have decided to deal with
only one of the available cherries.

>>>Fascinating. But Wee Jimmys attempt to play the woke crossdresser card has
>>>turned out to be probably the one of worst own goals by a party leader in the
>>UK
>>>this century after Liz Truss and Corbyn.
>>>
>>The "crossdressers" have had support from all parties.
>
>No they didn't, and freaks in a dress being allowed in womens changing rooms
>certainly doesn't have the support of the public.
>
Just because a small number of freaks cross-dress to assist their
nefarious activities it does not follow that all cross-dressers are
freaks. Are the prisons in your ideal world full of women caught
wearing trousers or Arabs and Africans caught wearing "dresses"?

Charles Ellson <charlesellson@btinternet.com> wrote:
> On Sun, 19 Mar 2023 10:34:03 -0000 (UTC), Muttley@dastardlyhq.com
> wrote:
>
>> On Sun, 19 Mar 2023 04:30:52 +0000
>> Charles Ellson <charlesellson@btinternet.com> wrote:
>>> On Sat, 18 Mar 2023 10:08:40 -0000 (UTC), Muttley@dastardlyhq.com
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Fri, 17 Mar 2023 21:29:52 +0000
>>>> Charles Ellson <charlesellson@btinternet.com> wrote:
>>>>> On Fri, 17 Mar 2023 16:36:21 -0000 (UTC), Sam Wilson
>>>>> <ukr@dummy.wislons.fastmail.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>>>> On the BBC News last night they mentioned that SNP membership has
>>> plummeted
>>>>>>> in 3 years to 70K. Oh dear.
>>>>>>
>>>>> Ah, "plummeted", another meaningless media buzzword. A lot of that
>>>>
>>>> Its certainly overused, but losing 40% of your members in 3 years can hardly
>>>> be decribed as much else.
>>>>
>>> How many have other parties lost/gained in the same period? What has
>>> been the longer term trend for each party? Have the other parties got
>>> reliable figures for their Scottish memberships?
>>
>> Who cares? The SNP lost 40% of its members in 3 years. End of. You can't
>> explain it away as anything other than a disaster.
>>
> You can explain it as many things but you have decided to deal with
> only one of the available cherries.

I’d be surprised if it was her fault!

>>>> Fascinating. But Wee Jimmys attempt to play the woke crossdresser card has
>>>> turned out to be probably the one of worst own goals by a party leader in the
>>> UK
>>>> this century after Liz Truss and Corbyn.
>>>>
>>> The "crossdressers" have had support from all parties.
>>
>> No they didn't, and freaks in a dress being allowed in womens changing rooms
>> certainly doesn't have the support of the public.
>>
> Just because a small number of freaks cross-dress to assist their
> nefarious activities it does not follow that all cross-dressers are
> freaks. Are the prisons in your ideal world full of women caught
> wearing trousers or Arabs and Africans caught wearing "dresses"?

Or Real Scotsmen for that matter…

Sam

--
The entity formerly known as Sam.Wilson@ed.ac.uk
Spit the dummy to reply

On Sun, 19 Mar 2023 23:20:50 +0000
Charles Ellson <charlesellson@btinternet.com> wrote:
>On Sun, 19 Mar 2023 10:34:03 -0000 (UTC), Muttley@dastardlyhq.com
>wrote:
>>No they didn't, and freaks in a dress being allowed in womens changing rooms
>>certainly doesn't have the support of the public.
>>
>Just because a small number of freaks cross-dress to assist their
>nefarious activities it does not follow that all cross-dressers are
>freaks. Are the prisons in your ideal world full of women caught
>wearing trousers or Arabs and Africans caught wearing "dresses"?

Do you actually know any women? If you did you'd understand they don't want
any men in their private spaces, end of. It doesn't matter if they're wearing
a dress and talking in a squeaky voice.

<Muttley@dastardlyhq.com> wrote:
> On Sun, 19 Mar 2023 23:20:50 +0000
> Charles Ellson <charlesellson@btinternet.com> wrote:
>> On Sun, 19 Mar 2023 10:34:03 -0000 (UTC), Muttley@dastardlyhq.com
>> wrote:
>>> No they didn't, and freaks in a dress being allowed in womens changing rooms
>>> certainly doesn't have the support of the public.
>>>
>> Just because a small number of freaks cross-dress to assist their
>> nefarious activities it does not follow that all cross-dressers are
>> freaks. Are the prisons in your ideal world full of women caught
>> wearing trousers or Arabs and Africans caught wearing "dresses"?
>
> Do you actually know any women? If you did you'd understand they don't want
> any men in their private spaces, end of. It doesn't matter if they're wearing
> a dress and talking in a squeaky voice.

Do you know any trans people?

Sam

--
The entity formerly known as Sam.Wilson@ed.ac.uk
Spit the dummy to reply

On Mon, 20 Mar 2023 12:00:19 -0000 (UTC), Muttley@dastardlyhq.com
wrote:

>On Sun, 19 Mar 2023 23:20:50 +0000
>Charles Ellson <charlesellson@btinternet.com> wrote:
>>On Sun, 19 Mar 2023 10:34:03 -0000 (UTC), Muttley@dastardlyhq.com
>>wrote:
>>>No they didn't, and freaks in a dress being allowed in womens changing rooms
>>>certainly doesn't have the support of the public.
>>>
>>Just because a small number of freaks cross-dress to assist their
>>nefarious activities it does not follow that all cross-dressers are
>>freaks. Are the prisons in your ideal world full of women caught
>>wearing trousers or Arabs and Africans caught wearing "dresses"?
>
>Do you actually know any women? If you did you'd understand they don't want
>any men in their private spaces, end of. It doesn't matter if they're wearing
>a dress and talking in a squeaky voice.
>
Did you actually read what I posted? The problem involves a small but
harmful section of all of those wearing non-routine clothing. If you
cannot make that distinction then you are failing to address the
actual problem which if you had kept your eye on the news in recent
years is not exclusively a male-only one.

On 20.03.23 19:30, Charles Ellson wrote:
> On Mon, 20 Mar 2023 12:00:19 -0000 (UTC), Muttley@dastardlyhq.com
> wrote:
>
>> On Sun, 19 Mar 2023 23:20:50 +0000
>> Charles Ellson <charlesellson@btinternet.com> wrote:
>>> On Sun, 19 Mar 2023 10:34:03 -0000 (UTC), Muttley@dastardlyhq.com
>>> wrote:
>>>> No they didn't, and freaks in a dress being allowed in womens changing rooms
>>>> certainly doesn't have the support of the public.
>>>>
>>> Just because a small number of freaks cross-dress to assist their
>>> nefarious activities it does not follow that all cross-dressers are
>>> freaks. Are the prisons in your ideal world full of women caught
>>> wearing trousers or Arabs and Africans caught wearing "dresses"?
>>
>> Do you actually know any women? If you did you'd understand they don't want
>> any men in their private spaces, end of. It doesn't matter if they're wearing
>> a dress and talking in a squeaky voice.
>>
> Did you actually read what I posted? The problem involves a small but
> harmful section of all of those wearing non-routine clothing.

Is it actually, though? All I've heard is a loat of posturing from
reactionary anti-trans people claiming it to be a problem, but not
actual evidence or cited examples of people actually causing any problems.

Robin

On 21/03/2023 08:06, Bob wrote:
> On 20.03.23 19:30, Charles Ellson wrote:
>> On Mon, 20 Mar 2023 12:00:19 -0000 (UTC), Muttley@dastardlyhq.com
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On Sun, 19 Mar 2023 23:20:50 +0000
>>> Charles Ellson <charlesellson@btinternet.com> wrote:
>>>> On Sun, 19 Mar 2023 10:34:03 -0000 (UTC), Muttley@dastardlyhq.com
>>>> wrote:
>>>>> No they didn't, and freaks in a dress being allowed in womens
>>>>> changing rooms
>>>>> certainly doesn't have the support of the public.
>>>>>
>>>> Just because a small number of freaks cross-dress to assist their
>>>> nefarious activities it does not follow that all cross-dressers are
>>>> freaks. Are the prisons in your ideal world full of women caught
>>>> wearing trousers or Arabs and Africans caught wearing "dresses"?
>>>
>>> Do you actually know any women? If you did you'd understand they
>>> don't want
>>> any men in their private spaces, end of. It doesn't matter if they're
>>> wearing
>>> a dress and talking in a squeaky voice.
>>>
>> Did you actually read what I posted? The problem involves a small but
>> harmful section of all of those wearing non-routine clothing.
>
> Is it actually, though? All I've heard is a loat of posturing from
> reactionary anti-trans people claiming it to be a problem, but not
> actual evidence or cited examples of people actually causing any problems.
>

It appears to be a small section of one.
--
Graeme Wall
This account not read.

On Mon, 20 Mar 2023 18:04:06 -0000 (UTC)
Sam Wilson <ukr@dummy.wislons.fastmail.co.uk> wrote:
><Muttley@dastardlyhq.com> wrote:
>> On Sun, 19 Mar 2023 23:20:50 +0000
>> Charles Ellson <charlesellson@btinternet.com> wrote:
>>> On Sun, 19 Mar 2023 10:34:03 -0000 (UTC), Muttley@dastardlyhq.com
>>> wrote:
>>>> No they didn't, and freaks in a dress being allowed in womens changing
>rooms
>>>> certainly doesn't have the support of the public.
>>>>
>>> Just because a small number of freaks cross-dress to assist their
>>> nefarious activities it does not follow that all cross-dressers are
>>> freaks. Are the prisons in your ideal world full of women caught
>>> wearing trousers or Arabs and Africans caught wearing "dresses"?
>>
>> Do you actually know any women? If you did you'd understand they don't want
>> any men in their private spaces, end of. It doesn't matter if they're wearing
>
>> a dress and talking in a squeaky voice.
>
>Do you know any trans people?

No, and I don't want to. And it doesn't change the fact that there's no
such thing as a "trans" woman. There's women and there's deluded crossdressers
and women don't want those wierdos in their changing rooms.

Biological fact doesn't care about what some headcase identifies as in his head.

On Mon, 20 Mar 2023 18:30:11 +0000
Charles Ellson <charlesellson@btinternet.com> wrote:
>On Mon, 20 Mar 2023 12:00:19 -0000 (UTC), Muttley@dastardlyhq.com
>wrote:
>
>>On Sun, 19 Mar 2023 23:20:50 +0000
>>Charles Ellson <charlesellson@btinternet.com> wrote:
>>>On Sun, 19 Mar 2023 10:34:03 -0000 (UTC), Muttley@dastardlyhq.com
>>>wrote:
>>>>No they didn't, and freaks in a dress being allowed in womens changing rooms
>
>>>>certainly doesn't have the support of the public.
>>>>
>>>Just because a small number of freaks cross-dress to assist their
>>>nefarious activities it does not follow that all cross-dressers are
>>>freaks. Are the prisons in your ideal world full of women caught
>>>wearing trousers or Arabs and Africans caught wearing "dresses"?
>>
>>Do you actually know any women? If you did you'd understand they don't want
>>any men in their private spaces, end of. It doesn't matter if they're wearing
>>a dress and talking in a squeaky voice.
>>
>Did you actually read what I posted? The problem involves a small but
>harmful section of all of those wearing non-routine clothing. If you
>cannot make that distinction then you are failing to address the
>actual problem which if you had kept your eye on the news in recent
>years is not exclusively a male-only one.

FFS. Women don't want men in dresses in their private spaces. Period. There
ARE NO qualifiers.

Go meet some women - if you know any - and ask them.

On Tue, 21 Mar 2023 09:06:06 +0100
Bob <bob@domain.com> wrote:
>On 20.03.23 19:30, Charles Ellson wrote:
>> On Mon, 20 Mar 2023 12:00:19 -0000 (UTC), Muttley@dastardlyhq.com
>> wrote:
>>> Do you actually know any women? If you did you'd understand they don't want
>>> any men in their private spaces, end of. It doesn't matter if they're
>wearing
>>> a dress and talking in a squeaky voice.
>>>
>> Did you actually read what I posted? The problem involves a small but
>> harmful section of all of those wearing non-routine clothing.
>
>Is it actually, though? All I've heard is a loat of posturing from
>reactionary anti-trans people claiming it to be a problem, but not

Funny how anyone who disagrees with the current woke cause du jour is
"reactionary". The word you're looking for is "majority".

>actual evidence or cited examples of people actually causing any problems.

Go talk to some women. I get the distinct impression that not many people
on here know any other than their mothers.

Bob <bob@domain.com> wrote:
> On 20.03.23 19:30, Charles Ellson wrote:
>> On Mon, 20 Mar 2023 12:00:19 -0000 (UTC), Muttley@dastardlyhq.com
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On Sun, 19 Mar 2023 23:20:50 +0000
>>> Charles Ellson <charlesellson@btinternet.com> wrote:
>>>> On Sun, 19 Mar 2023 10:34:03 -0000 (UTC), Muttley@dastardlyhq.com
>>>> wrote:
>>>>> No they didn't, and freaks in a dress being allowed in womens changing rooms
>>>>> certainly doesn't have the support of the public.
>>>>>
>>>> Just because a small number of freaks cross-dress to assist their
>>>> nefarious activities it does not follow that all cross-dressers are
>>>> freaks. Are the prisons in your ideal world full of women caught
>>>> wearing trousers or Arabs and Africans caught wearing "dresses"?
>>>
>>> Do you actually know any women? If you did you'd understand they don't want
>>> any men in their private spaces, end of. It doesn't matter if they're wearing
>>> a dress and talking in a squeaky voice.
>>>
>> Did you actually read what I posted? The problem involves a small but
>> harmful section of all of those wearing non-routine clothing.
>
> Is it actually, though? All I've heard is a loat of posturing from
> reactionary anti-trans people claiming it to be a problem, but not
> actual evidence or cited examples of people actually causing any problems.

The Isla Bryson, Tiffany Scott and Katie Dolatowski cases in Scotland
(possibly amongst others) suggest there is a real problem with a very small
number of people. The issue with the proposed Scottish legislation is
really the removal of all forms of assessment or regulation and the
extremely woolly criteria linked to self-identification.

That may also lead to the chilling effect of confusion which, anecdotally,
for reasons that should become obvious, is happening in Ireland after their
equivalent legislation from a few years ago. See
<https://twitter.com/TheCountessIE/status/1604946789722771457?t=PFLzUdpCoO77Jq0lsZKJbg&s=19>

Sam

--
The entity formerly known as Sam.Wilson@ed.ac.uk
Spit the dummy to reply

<Muttley@dastardlyhq.com> wrote:
> On Mon, 20 Mar 2023 18:04:06 -0000 (UTC)
> Sam Wilson <ukr@dummy.wislons.fastmail.co.uk> wrote:
>> <Muttley@dastardlyhq.com> wrote:
>>> On Sun, 19 Mar 2023 23:20:50 +0000
>>> Charles Ellson <charlesellson@btinternet.com> wrote:
>>>> On Sun, 19 Mar 2023 10:34:03 -0000 (UTC), Muttley@dastardlyhq.com
>>>> wrote:
>>>>> No they didn't, and freaks in a dress being allowed in womens changing
>> rooms
>>>>> certainly doesn't have the support of the public.
>>>>>
>>>> Just because a small number of freaks cross-dress to assist their
>>>> nefarious activities it does not follow that all cross-dressers are
>>>> freaks. Are the prisons in your ideal world full of women caught
>>>> wearing trousers or Arabs and Africans caught wearing "dresses"?
>>>
>>> Do you actually know any women? If you did you'd understand they don't want
>>> any men in their private spaces, end of. It doesn't matter if they're wearing
>>
>>> a dress and talking in a squeaky voice.
>>
>> Do you know any trans people?
>
> No, and I don't want to. And it doesn't change the fact that there's no
> such thing as a "trans" woman. There's women and there's deluded crossdressers
> and women don't want those wierdos in their changing rooms.
>
> Biological fact doesn't care about what some headcase identifies as in his head.

Which highlights one of the major issues - the confusion of sex and gender.
Sex is basically biological and, except in a very small number of cases,
is pretty much binary (though some of the mechanisms by which it can be
expressed are complex and may get confusing). Gender is how people want to
express themselves and whether you believe there are two, three or hundreds
is a matter for much debate. Clearly some people who are biologically one
sex don’t feel like they belong to the gender most commonly attached to
that sex. Biology may be a fact, but so is psychology. We have to live
with it.

FWIW I’ve worked, not closely, with three M->F trans people and one male
partial cross-dresser, that I know of. There may well be more that I’ve
simply not been aware of.

Sam

--
The entity formerly known as Sam.Wilson@ed.ac.uk
Spit the dummy to reply

On 21.03.23 12:55, Sam Wilson wrote:
> <Muttley@dastardlyhq.com> wrote:
>> On Mon, 20 Mar 2023 18:04:06 -0000 (UTC)
>> Sam Wilson <ukr@dummy.wislons.fastmail.co.uk> wrote:
>>> <Muttley@dastardlyhq.com> wrote:
>>>> On Sun, 19 Mar 2023 23:20:50 +0000
>>>> Charles Ellson <charlesellson@btinternet.com> wrote:
>>>>> On Sun, 19 Mar 2023 10:34:03 -0000 (UTC), Muttley@dastardlyhq.com
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>> No they didn't, and freaks in a dress being allowed in womens changing
>>> rooms
>>>>>> certainly doesn't have the support of the public.
>>>>>>
>>>>> Just because a small number of freaks cross-dress to assist their
>>>>> nefarious activities it does not follow that all cross-dressers are
>>>>> freaks. Are the prisons in your ideal world full of women caught
>>>>> wearing trousers or Arabs and Africans caught wearing "dresses"?
>>>>
>>>> Do you actually know any women? If you did you'd understand they don't want
>>>> any men in their private spaces, end of. It doesn't matter if they're wearing
>>>
>>>> a dress and talking in a squeaky voice.
>>>
>>> Do you know any trans people?
>>
>> No, and I don't want to. And it doesn't change the fact that there's no
>> such thing as a "trans" woman. There's women and there's deluded crossdressers
>> and women don't want those wierdos in their changing rooms.
>>
>> Biological fact doesn't care about what some headcase identifies as in his head.
>
> Which highlights one of the major issues - the confusion of sex and gender.
> Sex is basically biological and, except in a very small number of cases,
> is pretty much binary (though some of the mechanisms by which it can be
> expressed are complex and may get confusing).

Sort of, it's more of a bimodal distribution. We can look at a range of
characteristics of people, and find for each characteristic, there is a
trend towards bimodality, that "males" tend to have one sort of feature
and "females" tend to have a different sort of feature. For some
physical characteristics, humans have very clear dimorphism, while for
others dimorphism exists, but only weakly. For example the development
of breast tissue/fat distribution is quite stronly dimorphic (though
there are some men with larger breasts than some women), while height is
weakly dimorphic: we can say, at a population level, that men are taller
than women, but it is impossible to identify any kind of height cutoff
that meaningfully can be used to separate men from women.

If we take the agregate of all of the physical traits that are dimorphic
between men and women, the population falls into a clear bimodal
distribution, but for any given characteristic there are individuals who
express it atypically, and there is a spread across the population as to
how strongly or weakly "typical" people are. Some have the "typical"
expression in almost all of their characteristics, while others have
some that go one way and others that go the other way.

We have chosen to settle upon one paticular characteristics that is one
of the most stronly bimodal ones, that is the physical form of the
reproductive organs, as our delimiter of sex, but even then there are
indivduals who have reproductive organs that are ambiguous or whose
other sets of physical characteristics trend in agregate against that type.

> Gender is how people want to
> express themselves and whether you believe there are two, three or hundreds
> is a matter for much debate. Clearly some people who are biologically one
> sex don’t feel like they belong to the gender most commonly attached to
> that sex. Biology may be a fact, but so is psychology. We have to live
> with it.

Although it is not really possible to fully divorce phsychology from
biology. There are enough unfortuante cases of individuals being raised
with the intention of them conforming to the "wrong" gender (eg David
Reimer), that it is pretty clear that simple social and cultural
environment is not enough to establish gender identity, that it is
something rooted in the structure and (biological) development of the brain.

Just as there are individuals who are broadly aligned to the set of
characteristics that we associate with one "sex" but have certain
characteristics thate are "atypical", so there are some individuals for
whom the psychological expression of gender identity is one such
characteristic. Just as there are tall women, men who can't grow beards,
women with XY chromosomes, there are people with largely female bodies
but male psychological characteristics and vice versa. Indeed there are
a variety of characteristics of human psychology, and different people
express different ones in a more or less strongly bimodal fashion, and
have different combinations of typically male and typically female
expressions.

> FWIW I’ve worked, not closely, with three M->F trans people and one male
> partial cross-dresser, that I know of. There may well be more that I’ve
> simply not been aware of.

I've known a few people over the years with differing degrees of
atypical gender identity, from going all in with transitioning at one
end to occasionally wearing against-type clothing in private at the
other. Women's fashion has become sufficiently diverse in terms of
acceptance that these days you can't really draw a distinction between a
woman wearing typically male forms of dress for reasons of gender
identity as distinct from just doing it as a fashion choice. The days of
women wearing trousers being somehow worthy of comment are long since past.

Robin

On 21.03.23 11:19, Muttley@dastardlyhq.com wrote:
> On Mon, 20 Mar 2023 18:30:11 +0000
> Charles Ellson <charlesellson@btinternet.com> wrote:
>> On Mon, 20 Mar 2023 12:00:19 -0000 (UTC), Muttley@dastardlyhq.com
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On Sun, 19 Mar 2023 23:20:50 +0000
>>> Charles Ellson <charlesellson@btinternet.com> wrote:
>>>> On Sun, 19 Mar 2023 10:34:03 -0000 (UTC), Muttley@dastardlyhq.com
>>>> wrote:
>>>>> No they didn't, and freaks in a dress being allowed in womens changing rooms
>>
>>>>> certainly doesn't have the support of the public.
>>>>>
>>>> Just because a small number of freaks cross-dress to assist their
>>>> nefarious activities it does not follow that all cross-dressers are
>>>> freaks. Are the prisons in your ideal world full of women caught
>>>> wearing trousers or Arabs and Africans caught wearing "dresses"?
>>>
>>> Do you actually know any women? If you did you'd understand they don't want
>>> any men in their private spaces, end of. It doesn't matter if they're wearing
>>> a dress and talking in a squeaky voice.
>>>
>> Did you actually read what I posted? The problem involves a small but
>> harmful section of all of those wearing non-routine clothing. If you
>> cannot make that distinction then you are failing to address the
>> actual problem which if you had kept your eye on the news in recent
>> years is not exclusively a male-only one.
>
> FFS. Women don't want men in dresses in their private spaces. Period. There
> ARE NO qualifiers.
>
> Go meet some women - if you know any - and ask them.

I had exactly this conversation with a female friend a couple of weeks
ago. Her view was that she frankly doesn't care, if a trans-woman wants
to use the female facilities, they are welcome to do so. But I guess you
would rather I listen to you man-splain what "all women" feel rather
than actually listen to what an actual woman has to say on the matter.

Robin

On Tue, 21 Mar 2023 09:06:06 +0100, Bob <bob@domain.com> wrote:

>On 20.03.23 19:30, Charles Ellson wrote:
>> On Mon, 20 Mar 2023 12:00:19 -0000 (UTC), Muttley@dastardlyhq.com
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On Sun, 19 Mar 2023 23:20:50 +0000
>>> Charles Ellson <charlesellson@btinternet.com> wrote:
>>>> On Sun, 19 Mar 2023 10:34:03 -0000 (UTC), Muttley@dastardlyhq.com
>>>> wrote:
>>>>> No they didn't, and freaks in a dress being allowed in womens changing rooms
>>>>> certainly doesn't have the support of the public.
>>>>>
>>>> Just because a small number of freaks cross-dress to assist their
>>>> nefarious activities it does not follow that all cross-dressers are
>>>> freaks. Are the prisons in your ideal world full of women caught
>>>> wearing trousers or Arabs and Africans caught wearing "dresses"?
>>>
>>> Do you actually know any women? If you did you'd understand they don't want
>>> any men in their private spaces, end of. It doesn't matter if they're wearing
>>> a dress and talking in a squeaky voice.
>>>
>> Did you actually read what I posted? The problem involves a small but
>> harmful section of all of those wearing non-routine clothing.
>
>Is it actually, though? All I've heard is a loat of posturing from
>reactionary anti-trans people claiming it to be a problem, but not
>actual evidence or cited examples of people actually causing any problems.
>
There have been reports, some with photographic evidence, of poorly
disguised males entering female places (in particular one masturbating
onto clothes in a shop changing room) and behaving in a manner that
would be seen as disgusting to males, females or whoever. It is a
small number of people but spoils the game for those who wish to dress
or behave differently without causing harm or offence. The gate has
been opened in recent years but without adequate official
consideration of keeping out the wolves in sheep's clothing who are a
danger to all.

On Tue, 21 Mar 2023 10:19:43 -0000 (UTC), Muttley@dastardlyhq.com
wrote:

>On Mon, 20 Mar 2023 18:30:11 +0000
>Charles Ellson <charlesellson@btinternet.com> wrote:
>>On Mon, 20 Mar 2023 12:00:19 -0000 (UTC), Muttley@dastardlyhq.com
>>wrote:
>>
>>>On Sun, 19 Mar 2023 23:20:50 +0000
>>>Charles Ellson <charlesellson@btinternet.com> wrote:
>>>>On Sun, 19 Mar 2023 10:34:03 -0000 (UTC), Muttley@dastardlyhq.com
>>>>wrote:
>>>>>No they didn't, and freaks in a dress being allowed in womens changing rooms
>>
>>>>>certainly doesn't have the support of the public.
>>>>>
>>>>Just because a small number of freaks cross-dress to assist their
>>>>nefarious activities it does not follow that all cross-dressers are
>>>>freaks. Are the prisons in your ideal world full of women caught
>>>>wearing trousers or Arabs and Africans caught wearing "dresses"?
>>>
>>>Do you actually know any women? If you did you'd understand they don't want
>>>any men in their private spaces, end of. It doesn't matter if they're wearing
>>>a dress and talking in a squeaky voice.
>>>
>>Did you actually read what I posted? The problem involves a small but
>>harmful section of all of those wearing non-routine clothing. If you
>>cannot make that distinction then you are failing to address the
>>actual problem which if you had kept your eye on the news in recent
>>years is not exclusively a male-only one.
>
>FFS. Women don't want men in dresses in their private spaces. Period. There
>ARE NO qualifiers.
>
>Go meet some women - if you know any - and ask them.
>
I must have met a few more than you. Many are quite happy with a man
in a dress (not myself, don't get excited) who is one of the majority
who behaves himself. The ones to worry about are possibly much the
same lot as found in previous years stereotypically in a gaberdine mac
and sawn-off trouser legs; now they just put on a dress.

On Tue, 21 Mar 2023 18:24:17 +0100
Bob <bob@domain.com> wrote:
>On 21.03.23 11:19, Muttley@dastardlyhq.com wrote:
>> FFS. Women don't want men in dresses in their private spaces. Period. There
>> ARE NO qualifiers.
>>
>> Go meet some women - if you know any - and ask them.
>
>I had exactly this conversation with a female friend a couple of weeks
>ago. Her view was that she frankly doesn't care, if a trans-woman wants
>to use the female facilities, they are welcome to do so. But I guess you
>would rather I listen to you man-splain what "all women" feel rather
>than actually listen to what an actual woman has to say on the matter.

Actually I've listened to my wife, her friends and some of my family.
I wonder how your friend would feel when the tranny gets his dick out in
the shower.

Am 22.03.2023 um 10:13 schrieb Muttley@dastardlyhq.com:
> On Tue, 21 Mar 2023 18:24:17 +0100
> Bob <bob@domain.com> wrote:
>> On 21.03.23 11:19, Muttley@dastardlyhq.com wrote:
>>> FFS. Women don't want men in dresses in their private spaces. Period. There
>>> ARE NO qualifiers.
>>>
>>> Go meet some women - if you know any - and ask them.
>>
>> I had exactly this conversation with a female friend a couple of weeks
>> ago. Her view was that she frankly doesn't care, if a trans-woman wants
>> to use the female facilities, they are welcome to do so. But I guess you
>> would rather I listen to you man-splain what "all women" feel rather
>> than actually listen to what an actual woman has to say on the matter.
>
> Actually I've listened to my wife, her friends and some of my family.
> I wonder how your friend would feel when the tranny gets his dick out in
> the shower.

Do you know the difference between 'Restrooms' and 'Public shower areas'?

One simple difference I know is that when there's a long queue to the
female rest room, a fair number of women don't mind using the male
facilities, and I've never seen this happen at public showers ;-)

Rolf

On Wed, 22 Mar 2023 10:23:45 +0100
Rolf Mantel <news@hartig-mantel.de> wrote:
>Am 22.03.2023 um 10:13 schrieb Muttley@dastardlyhq.com:
>> On Tue, 21 Mar 2023 18:24:17 +0100
>> Bob <bob@domain.com> wrote:
>>> On 21.03.23 11:19, Muttley@dastardlyhq.com wrote:
>>>> FFS. Women don't want men in dresses in their private spaces. Period. There
>
>>>> ARE NO qualifiers.
>>>>
>>>> Go meet some women - if you know any - and ask them.
>>>
>>> I had exactly this conversation with a female friend a couple of weeks
>>> ago. Her view was that she frankly doesn't care, if a trans-woman wants
>>> to use the female facilities, they are welcome to do so. But I guess you
>>> would rather I listen to you man-splain what "all women" feel rather
>>> than actually listen to what an actual woman has to say on the matter.
>>
>> Actually I've listened to my wife, her friends and some of my family.
>> I wonder how your friend would feel when the tranny gets his dick out in
>> the shower.
>
>Do you know the difference between 'Restrooms' and 'Public shower areas'?

A restroom is a lounge unless you're in america. Did you mean toilet?
Somewhere like a gym or council leisure centre usually has combined changing,
toilet and shower facilities.

>One simple difference I know is that when there's a long queue to the
>female rest room, a fair number of women don't mind using the male
>facilities, and I've never seen this happen at public showers ;-)

Thats their choice, its not being forced upon them.

In message <tvcp81$6r0q$2@dont-email.me>, at 18:24:17 on Tue, 21 Mar
2023, Bob <bob@domain.com> remarked:
>On 21.03.23 11:19, Muttley@dastardlyhq.com wrote:
>> On Mon, 20 Mar 2023 18:30:11 +0000
>> Charles Ellson <charlesellson@btinternet.com> wrote:
>>> On Mon, 20 Mar 2023 12:00:19 -0000 (UTC), Muttley@dastardlyhq.com
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Sun, 19 Mar 2023 23:20:50 +0000
>>>> Charles Ellson <charlesellson@btinternet.com> wrote:
>>>>> On Sun, 19 Mar 2023 10:34:03 -0000 (UTC), Muttley@dastardlyhq.com
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>> No they didn't, and freaks in a dress being allowed in womens
>>>>>>changing rooms
>>>
>>>>>> certainly doesn't have the support of the public.
>>>>>>
>>>>> Just because a small number of freaks cross-dress to assist their
>>>>> nefarious activities it does not follow that all cross-dressers are
>>>>> freaks. Are the prisons in your ideal world full of women caught
>>>>> wearing trousers or Arabs and Africans caught wearing "dresses"?
>>>>
>>>> Do you actually know any women? If you did you'd understand they
>>>>don't want any men in their private spaces, end of. It doesn't
>>>>matter if they're wearing a dress and talking in a squeaky voice.
>>>>
>>> Did you actually read what I posted? The problem involves a small but
>>> harmful section of all of those wearing non-routine clothing. If you
>>> cannot make that distinction then you are failing to address the
>>> actual problem which if you had kept your eye on the news in recent
>>> years is not exclusively a male-only one.

>> FFS. Women don't want men in dresses in their private spaces.
>>Period. There ARE NO qualifiers. Go meet some women - if you know
>>any - and ask them.
>
>I had exactly this conversation with a female friend a couple of weeks
>ago. Her view was that she frankly doesn't care, if a trans-woman wants
>to use the female facilities, they are welcome to do so. But I guess
>you would rather I listen to you man-splain what "all women" feel
>rather than actually listen to what an actual woman has to say on the
>matter.

There are many different views amongst "actual women", on this as well
as other topics. Always going to be outliers at both ends, and plenty
who are 'in the middle'. Humans often socialise in groups who share much
the same values, so in any particular setting you can get a majority
opinion very different from another setting.

In this particular topic, 'majority' is not necessarily the best, and
there's room for people to respect the minority, rather than saying "if
you don't like it, go somewhere else".
--
Roland Perry

On 22.03.23 10:13, Muttley@dastardlyhq.com wrote:
> On Tue, 21 Mar 2023 18:24:17 +0100
> Bob <bob@domain.com> wrote:
>> On 21.03.23 11:19, Muttley@dastardlyhq.com wrote:
>>> FFS. Women don't want men in dresses in their private spaces. Period. There
>>> ARE NO qualifiers.
>>>
>>> Go meet some women - if you know any - and ask them.
>>
>> I had exactly this conversation with a female friend a couple of weeks
>> ago. Her view was that she frankly doesn't care, if a trans-woman wants
>> to use the female facilities, they are welcome to do so. But I guess you
>> would rather I listen to you man-splain what "all women" feel rather
>> than actually listen to what an actual woman has to say on the matter.
>
> Actually I've listened to my wife, her friends and some of my family.
> I wonder how your friend would feel when the tranny gets his dick out in
> the shower.

You're making claims about all women, not a small set of women you
happen to know. Claiming to speak for half of all of humanity on the
basis of perhaps half a dozen people you have met is the most
extraordinary arrogance.

Robin

On Wed, 22 Mar 2023 12:27:56 +0100
Bob <bob@domain.com> wrote:
>On 22.03.23 10:13, Muttley@dastardlyhq.com wrote:
>> On Tue, 21 Mar 2023 18:24:17 +0100
>> Bob <bob@domain.com> wrote:
>>> On 21.03.23 11:19, Muttley@dastardlyhq.com wrote:
>>>> FFS. Women don't want men in dresses in their private spaces. Period. There
>
>>>> ARE NO qualifiers.
>>>>
>>>> Go meet some women - if you know any - and ask them.
>>>
>>> I had exactly this conversation with a female friend a couple of weeks
>>> ago. Her view was that she frankly doesn't care, if a trans-woman wants
>>> to use the female facilities, they are welcome to do so. But I guess you
>>> would rather I listen to you man-splain what "all women" feel rather
>>> than actually listen to what an actual woman has to say on the matter.
>>
>> Actually I've listened to my wife, her friends and some of my family.
>> I wonder how your friend would feel when the tranny gets his dick out in
>> the shower.
>
>You're making claims about all women, not a small set of women you
>happen to know. Claiming to speak for half of all of humanity on the
>basis of perhaps half a dozen people you have met is the most
>extraordinary arrogance.

I think they're a fairly representative sample. Add to that the calls I've
heard on the radio and I think the consensus is pretty firmly on no trannies
in womens spaces.

But whatever, you go wave your rainbow flag and spout diversity bollocks if
it makes you happy.

Theo <theom+news@chiark.greenend.org.uk> wrote:
> Muttley@dastardlyhq.com wrote:
>> On Wed, 8 Mar 2023 16:21:13 +0000
>> Graham Nye <nospam@thenyes.org.uk> wrote:
>>> On 2023-03-08 15:04:35, Graeme Wall wrote:
>>> I thought he was busy steering:
>>>
>>> "Our driver could have run from his seat and dashed to the next carriage,
>>> where he might well have been safe,' said Sir Richard. "Instead, he tried
>>> to steer the train to safety."
>>
>> Makes you wonder how he thinks his rocket planes work. Someone lights the
>> touchpaper?
>
> That's why his rocket planes are unworkable - because they're designed for
> human pilots, rather than being 'steered' by computers (like everyone else
> in the industry). This is down to Burt Rutan's 'old school' design
> philosophy.
>
> https://www.wired.com/2015/07/blame-catastrophic-blindspot-virgin-galactic-crash/
>
> (That's Virgin Galactic. Virgin Orbit has conventional rockets, albeit
> air-launched, not rocket planes)

Now permanently grounded:

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2023/04/04/ftse-100-markets-live-oil-prices-virgin-orbit-stock/

Recliner <recliner.usenet@gmail.com> wrote:
> Nobody <jock@soccer.com> wrote:
>> On Wed, 8 Mar 2023 16:56:14 +0000, Roland Perry <roland@perry.uk>
>> wrote:

>>>
>>> No I haven't. I've specifically given a reason why. Partly due to the
>>> blizzard of postings you subject the group to.
>>
>> <guffaw>
>>
>> Pot... black etc.
>>
>
> In years gone by, someone here used to compile statistics on posters
> (numbers of posts, numbers of threads started, etc). I'm not sure how they
> did it, and whether their method relied on Google Groups, but it would be
> interesting to have such stats today.
>

I thought those statistics were being compiled before Google came along?
The compiler publishing them towards the end of the year possibly
December.

GH