Graham Linehan on Twitter / Trans debate

[trailer]

Some narrow minded individuals about up North!

You see it isn't narrow minded. That is a lazy comment. Because I believe that there are two genders and they have been pretty well defined for thousands of years.
I respect anyone's right to dress how they feel or want. But using it as an excuse to enter spaces that are reserved and protected for other genders is wrong. Whether it be sport or anything else.

[Milltown Row2]

The word "Some" was used therefore an observation on a section of the populace not a "sweeping generalisation".

So why define it as a region?

[Rossfan]

The ones giving out about it on gaaboard.com are from the 6.
Someone should tell them about the native Americans.

[seafoid]

It doesent matter how many dresses he puts on or how much makeup. It's impossible for him to be a mother

Extending that logic, is a woman who cannot have kids but adopts a child a "mother"?

It's a gender specific term.
Cocks = Fathers
Fannies = Mothers

Check your underwear to see which you have and go from there. This is really basic science in fairness.

And those whose genitalia and characteristics are more ambiguous?

Or do we just deny their actual existence because it's inconvenient when you can't fit everything into neat pigeon holes?

They are a very small subgroup of the trans massive.

[trailer]

It doesent matter how many dresses he puts on or how much makeup. It's impossible for him to be a mother

Extending that logic, is a woman who cannot have kids but adopts a child a "mother"?

It's a gender specific term.
Cocks = Fathers
Fannies = Mothers

Check your underwear to see which you have and go from there. This is really basic science in fairness.

And those whose genitalia and characteristics are more ambiguous?

Or do we just deny their actual existence because it's inconvenient when you can't fit everything into neat pigeon holes?

They will still fall under one of two genders.
Few simple questions and tests should do it if the issue ever arises.

For 99.9% you can work off my c**k / No c**k flow chart.

[J70]

It doesent matter how many dresses he puts on or how much makeup. It's impossible for him to be a mother

Extending that logic, is a woman who cannot have kids but adopts a child a "mother"?

It's a gender specific term.
Cocks = Fathers
Fannies = Mothers

Check your underwear to see which you have and go from there. This is really basic science in fairness.

And those whose genitalia and characteristics are more ambiguous?

Or do we just deny their actual existence because it's inconvenient when you can't fit everything into neat pigeon holes?

They are a very small subgroup of the trans massive.

Leaving aside the non-anatomical stuff, does that mean you're willing to acknowledge the legitimacy of at least that small subgroup?

[J70]

It doesent matter how many dresses he puts on or how much makeup. It's impossible for him to be a mother

Extending that logic, is a woman who cannot have kids but adopts a child a "mother"?

It's a gender specific term.
Cocks = Fathers
Fannies = Mothers

Check your underwear to see which you have and go from there. This is really basic science in fairness.

And those whose genitalia and characteristics are more ambiguous?

Or do we just deny their actual existence because it's inconvenient when you can't fit everything into neat pigeon holes?

They will still fall under one of two genders.
Few simple questions and tests should do it if the issue ever arises.

For 99.9% you can work off my c**k / No c**k flow chart.

There's "basic" science to back up your pigeon holing of them?

Are there measurements involved?

A lot of biological traits fall on a spectrum.

[jcpen]

Some narrow minded individuals about up North!

Wasn't Roscommon the only county to vote no to Gay marriage?

[gallsman]

Shania Twain has a lot to answer for.

[seafoid]

It doesent matter how many dresses he puts on or how much makeup. It's impossible for him to be a mother

Extending that logic, is a woman who cannot have kids but adopts a child a "mother"?

It's a gender specific term.
Cocks = Fathers
Fannies = Mothers

Check your underwear to see which you have and go from there. This is really basic science in fairness.

And those whose genitalia and characteristics are more ambiguous?

Or do we just deny their actual existence because it's inconvenient when you can't fit everything into neat pigeon holes?

They are a very small subgroup of the trans massive.

Leaving aside the non-anatomical stuff, does that mean you're willing to acknowledge the legitimacy of at least that small subgroup?

Absolutely. We used to live in India and after our daughter was born the transexual hijras came to bless the baby. All the drivers were afraid of them.
There are maybe 200 in Mumbai, population 17m. I was impressed that Indian society had a place for them.
But AGPs are dreadful . The Trans movement in the West is totally different .

[trueblue1234]

Some narrow minded individuals about up North!

Wasn't Roscommon the only county to vote no to Gay marriage?

😂 👏

[RedHand88]

Some narrow minded individuals about up North!

Wasn't Roscommon the only county to vote no to Gay marriage?

Oh he's done you there. He's. Done. You. There.

[Rossfan]

I voted for it anyway.
And I have no problem with Trans people, fluid or non binary or anything else.
Or Rhubarbs either.

[AustinPowers]

Shania Twain has a lot to answer for.

I finally  got that!   

[seafoid]

Shania Twain has a lot to answer for.

I finally  got that!   

That don't impress me much