This will oust the corruption of transgender

[AccessBlaster]

The problem isn't merely identifying as another gender, essentially role playing. The danger comes from the surgery, or mutilation of the reproductive organs. Once you cross that line it's a lifetime of secondary care caused by unnecessary surgery. Sometimes the patient doesn't realize they will become sexually dysfunctional after surgery. At that point you have created another set of problems that didn't exist before the surgery.

 

[Uncle Gizmo]

This person is mentally ill:-

https://twitter.com/x/status/1706555697930866837

 

[Uncle Gizmo]

There is disturbing information in the lyrics.

- YouTube

Enjoy the videos and music you love, upload original content, and share it all with friends, family, and the world on YouTube.

youtube.com

 

[Cotswold]

The problem isn't merely identifying as another gender, essentially role playing.

Reminds me of the clowns in the acting profession who insist that a Welshman must be played by a Welsh actor. That only a gay actor should play a gay part, or a trans play a trans part, etc. Taking this to its logical conclusion means that only a policeman should have played Callahan in Dirty Harry. Only a murderer or a rapist can play those parts. A farmer can be the only one to play a farmer. And so on and so on. But in reality is it a case of pointless minorities and failures in life shouting the loudest?

We’ll not call them stupid. Because if we did, that would be an insult to the stupid people?

 

[ColinEssex]

I think it all started with women wanting equality (but only when it suits them). They decided they didn't want to do what they are designed for - having and bringing up children, they farm them out to any Tom, Dick or Harry to look after whilst they swan off to work, then moan on that childcare is expensive, the government should pay etc etc. Why? Women get pregnant, if you can't be a proper mother then keep your knees together.
Now, it's developed with all these mental queers saying they are the wrong sex etc. It's all done for attention. A bloke is a bloke and a woman is a woman, stop bellyaching on and do something useful.
Col

 

[Uncle Gizmo]

having and bringing up children,

I don't blame women for going out into the workplace and working so that they can be independent. However, I do think it belittles the role of mother.

I think either a man's wage should be raised to a level, that a family can survive on a single earners money. Alternatively, and this it would be the best option, but I think it would be the most resisted option, I think a mother should get a wage for being a mother, a decent wage, because it's a full-time job, and it is an important job...

 

[The_Doc_Man]

Now, it's developed with all these mental queers saying they are the wrong sex etc. It's all done for attention.

Yep - done to call attention to the very real physiological issues that account for a lot of "wrong sex" issues. I've mentioned it before and I'll say it again. There are PHYSICAL brain structures that demonstrate this point: It IS possible for someone with the brain structure of a woman to be born into a body that would be assigned male at birth. (And vice-versa.) Col, you perhaps don't want to accept this, but for some people it is a very real thing to have the persistent feeling that you were born into the wrong body. Are you familiar with the phrase "more to be pitied than censured"? I very firmly believe it applies to the cases you describe.

I think a mother should get a wage for being a mother, a decent wage, because it's a full-time job, and it is an important job...

But of course, there are the child-welfare moms that keep on popping out kids just to get one more incremental support check.

Women get pregnant, if you can't be a proper mother then keep your knees together.

Here, Col, we agree.

In the USA, we have a saying that we teach to kids as an early simplified lesson in responsibility. "If you can't do the time, don't do the crime." Well, for some mothers, that mantra is good advice. If you can't do 20 years at the "mom-jail" then maybe having that kid wasn't such a good idea.

 

[ebs17]

A bloke is a bloke and a woman is a woman, stop bellyaching on and do something useful.

A bloke is incapable of raising children? This will certainly be the case for you.

With your medieval views, one wishes that you could neither reproduce physically nor mentally.

 

[ebs17]

women wanting equality

<irony on> Such a terrible thing. In the end, they believe that they are human too. <irony off>

 

[Steve R.]

I don't blame women for going out into the workplace and working so that they can be independent. However, I do think it belittles the role of mother.

I think either a man's wage should be raised to a level, that a family can survive on a single earners money. Alternatively, and this it would be the best option, but I think it would be the most resisted option, I think a mother should get a wage for being a mother, a decent wage, because it's a full-time job, and it is an important job...

You have actually raised an issue that has been offered as a thought experiment ( can't remember who), but has not caught on as being valid. Its one of those "thoughts" that cannot be allowed to exist. So it is immediately shouted down.

Basically, women entering the workforce has effectively "lowered" men's wages (actually everyone's wages.) so that men can no longer support the family on one single salary. Of course, women have a right to work, but this income loss is one of those unintended consequences that people do not think about until after the fact.

There are two contexts. First, women comprise approximately 50% of the population. When women entered the workforce, they essentially doubled the number of employed meaning that there was now more competition for the number of available jobs. The consequence, wages are effectively lowered. So it takes two incomes to meet household requirements instead of one. (There may exist an angle that as more people enter the workforce, the number of jobs actually increases.)

Second, we have become a consumer society. Instead of save now, pay later; we have buy now and pay (over-time) later. This can give a household, initially, a higher standard of living. (Wow, two incomes - we are rich, lets buy!!!) (Especially when it comes to buying housing.) However, over time this is inflationary. A result, it takes two incomes to make ends meet.

 

[Dick7Access]

I told my wife that Sara called Abraham LORD, when are you going to start calling me LORD. She said when you start living like Abraham.

 

[The_Doc_Man]

You have actually raised an issue that has been offered as a thought experiment ( can't remember who), but has not caught on as being valid. Its one of those "thoughts" that cannot be allowed to exist. So it is immediately shouted down.

Basically, women entering the workforce has effectively "lowered" men's wages (actually everyone's wages.) so that men can no longer support the family on one single salary. Of course, women have a right to work, but this income loss is one of those unintended consequences that people do not think about until after the fact.

There are two contexts. First, women comprise approximately 50% of the population. When women entered the workforce, they essentially doubled the number of employed meaning that there was now more competition for the number of available jobs. The consequence, wages are effectively lowered. So it takes two incomes to meet household requirements instead of one. (There may exist an angle that as more people enter the workforce, the number of jobs actually increases.)

Second, we have become a consumer society. Instead of save now, pay later; we have buy now and pay (over-time) later. This can give a household, initially, a higher standard of living. (Wow, two incomes - we are rich, lets buy!!!) (Especially when it comes to buying housing.) However, over time this is inflationary. A result, it takes two incomes to make ends meet.

It took me a while to think about this. Women are (approximately) 50% of the population. But USA unemployment has been hovering at 3.8% and that is generally considered near-full employment considering both men and women (and whatever other groups you care to name that are delineated by gender). When unemployment is below about 5% overall, that means we are actually over-employed, because the normal rate of people "between jobs" is in the vicinity of 5%. But it also means that the normal salary drivers that are used to entice people to return to work are already revving up because people get "enticed" by various factors including money in order to take a new job when they already WERE employed. Therefore, in a low-unemployment economy, your premise that women lowered wages by entering the workforce is no longer valid. The drivers for that phenomenon are no longer in force.

 

[Uncle Gizmo]

Transgender is a person lying to you.

Brilliant insight and explanation from Candace.

Candace Owens Destroys LGBT Activist🤯😱@whatever

In this video, candace owens destroys LGBT Activist.

youtube.com

 

[Jon]

I think with wages, you have to look at both supply and demand. If you just look at supply, then of course more supply lowers wages. But there is the demand curve too, and where they intersect is where you get the price (assuming no artificial barriers like legistlation, minimum wage etc).

There is also something called the elasticity of supply and elasticity of demand. In some cases, you can double supply, but price is inelastic i.e. doesn't change much. I remembered something from my economics classes at last!

 

[Steve R.]

Therefore, in a low-unemployment economy, your premise that women lowered wages by entering the workforce is no longer valid. The drivers for that phenomenon are no longer in force

Your response is based on the current situation where the economy is already based on women working. It neglects to consider the effect on an economy (where woman do not work) that then transitions into an economy where women work, essentially doubling the workforce. So what do you think would happen to the pay of employees as a result of a transition from an economy where women do not work to one where they do work?

PS: The unemployment rate also needs to be considered within the context of the labor participation rate, which is currently 62.8% (August 2023). Theoretically that means that 37.2% of the potential workforce, who could work, are not working.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Since posting, I ran across this article: "Do wages fall when women enter an occupation?" Please note that this article does not really address the question I posited where the economy is initially dominated by mostly male workers and then transitions into an economy were the workers are both male and female in about equal proportions. The author is examining changes in gender composition of an occupation. The authors basic finding are that: "I find that a 10 percentage-point increase in the female fraction within an occupation leads to an 8 percent decrease in average male wage and a 7 percent decrease in average female wage in the concurrent census year ...".

 

[Pat Hartman]

During WWII, the men went off to fight and the women took their places building airplanes. That resulted in an immediate reduction in wages.

@ColinEssex Should Queen Victoria have refused the throne? How about QEII? Women can't rule a country if they can't work. The monarch has to produce an heir to continue the line of succession.

 

[ColinEssex]

@ColinEssex Women can't rule a country if they can't work.

I'm not saying women shouldn't work. We need women to work as secretaries, receptionists, shop assistants and dozens of other jobs, we even have women driving buses for christ sake. They're very good, reversing and parallel parking is a bit iffy, but they try

What I am questioning is when women become pregnant. They expect to continue working and farm out the kid to anyone. Women get child allowance to help support the upbringing of junior. Obviously many women spend this on fags and booze then complain they haven't got the money to feed the family, so they scrounge off food banks to get free food. If they are wealthy, they get a nanny in to raise the kid for them, then wonder why the kid goes off the rails and smashes up Congress or whatever for a laugh.
Apparently in the UK, many women go on the game and work in massage parlours or from home to make ends meet. They even have the kid in the next room whist they are working.
If women want to work, no problem. If they get pregnant then they should do what they are here for and raise their young, if they can't afford it then keep your legs together. Don't expect the state and my taxes to bail you out, women do very well for free government money, the whole system needs a revamp.
Col

 

[Pat Hartman]

I'm not saying women shouldn't work. We need women to work as secretaries, receptionists, shop assistants and dozens of other jobs, we even have women driving buses for christ sake. They're very good, reversing and parallel parking is a bit iffy, but they try

No wonder we don't see eye to eye on anything

 

[ColinEssex]

No wonder we don't see eye to eye on anything

Ha, yes. Two reasons for that.

a) you are always so serious - leading to

b) an inability to spot a joke when you read one. Women drivers have been the source of light hearted jokes in the UK for decades, the same way poke fun and ridicule Americans. All innocent stuff.
Col

 

[ebs17]

then keep your legs together

Hopefully all women of the world do that with guys like you. Guys like that don't deserve to be increased physically or mentally.
Anyone who hates women so much also hates people of other religions, other races, other regions.

I don't know what world you live in. In my world, fathers also look after children, and there are custody disputes when partnerships break up.
Women are not bad mothers if they send their child to kindergarten or school, parents are not bad parents if they do not dance around their children 24 hours a day.

I grew up in a society where over 90 percent of women were employed, well beyond the status of cleaner or receptionist. That doesn't do any harm. I would say that there are significantly fewer people who glorify themselves.