Unpopular opinions #5

Status
Thread locked. We start a new thread when they have over 1000 posts, click the blue button to see all threads for this topic and find the latest open thread.
1
I can actually get behind the gender thing. i can see that gender is a social thing, we’ve made it up. We based it off the two sexes and it changes based on which society you’re part of, but there’s nothing biological that links blue to boys for example. There’s nothing biological that dictates women should like pink, make up and have long hair. If you don’t feel you belong to a male or female gender and see yourself as somewhere in between then fine, call yourself non binary or whatever. Call yourself part of the female gender if that’s how you feel but don’t refer to yourself as a biological woman.

I do absolutely think there are 2 sexes. With very separate health needs/requirements and traits. That’s a scientific reality and it blows my mind that there’s even discussions about it. There are scientists on Twitter on claim there are more than two sexes.
 
Last edited:
HelloStereo said:
What if you have a cervix but don't want to be called a woman? What gives you the authority to choose how people should refer to themselves as?
Click to expand...
The majority of people with a cervix and any other female reproductive organs prefer to be called women/woman/girls.

When we remove women and change it to people it erases women. Not everyone who has a cervix knows what a cervix even is so if we say people with a cervix and erase women from that it actually has the potential for girls and women to miss out on vital cervical screening because they don’t know they have a cervix so don’t think this is something that applies to them - particularly if these are people whose first language is not English. This is just one example.

If we’re being inclusive then we should not erase women from the sentence. We can say women and people with a cervix.
 
that1 said:
It doesn’t impact me personally, directly. for me, I wouldn’t want to see living at home because you’re unmarried, normalised. I don’t think people living at home is ideal whatever the culture. A lot of brits do it because they have no other option to get onto the housing ladder and is very much not a preference or cultural ideal.

I think living at home into adulthood stunts personal growth. I think it encourages people to stay in toxic living arrangements. I think it idealises the family unit when it reality, many family units are dysfunctional. It discourages people leaving home for eduation/job opportunities. I think it’s quite regressive - it was the norm among brits to stay at home until marriage maybe 60-70 years ago. The onus being more on women to do so. It’s restrictive and pretty much rooted in misogyny (read up on patriarchal family systems, cba typing out here).

so it’s a practice I really would not want to see being normalised on a widespread level in the U.K. and if it was it would not be a society that I would deem to be fair or equal. That would impact me personally. That’s just my opinion though, I obviously don’t have a moral superiority.

on a more personal level, as someone who left home at 18 due to toxic family members and to pursue education, I was told by a colleague once that it’s better for women to live at home, and that brits aren’t “family orientated enough” and “just don’t get family” I absolutely am family orientated, I just wasn’t lucky enough to be born into a happy one. Their reasoning would’ve meant I stayed in a toxic environment because “family”.
Click to expand...

This reminds me of another unpopular opinion (in some circles): you don't have to put up with relatives you don't feel safe with just because they are your family. You aren't meant and forced to support people who don't give a damn or just do the basics and hold that against you when you refuse.
 
thegirlscout said:
That pretty much smacks of ‘I haven’t experienced it therefore it doesn’t matter’
The word women being replaced with persons and the women only spaces becoming gender neutral does affect people in lots of ways 🤦‍♀️
Click to expand...

Not really. Most people go about their day to day lives relatively unaffected by immigration but a few anecdotal experiences you hear about then makes everyone automatically think "immigration = bad". I'd say social deprivation and lack of funding of services affects more people. People aren't leaving school unable to read or write because of immigration.
 
hydeist said:
I think this issue would be a lot less contentious if men's health and other similar issues referred to "people with a prostate" or "people with a penis", however it tends to not be the case for whatever reason.
Click to expand...

Because more often than not it's biological men who transition to women who demand the changes, not the opposite. Not all by any means of course, but it certainly seems far more prevalent in mtf than ftm. Non-surprisingly it is yet again men who want to take things away from women. Even as basic as their right to bleeping be a woman. I mean, they've succeeded in taking the one last, fundamental thing we had.
 
Raininvain said:
Brass bands should be banned from playing publicly. What they do in their own time in their own homes and halls etc is totally up to them. Why should members of the public have to listen to that utter racket when they are out doing their shopping etc.
Also brass bands should be banned from applying to the Lottery for funding. No one even likes them and they should pay for themselves out of their own pocket.
Click to expand...

Best opinion of the thread.
 
jackolantern said:
Because more often than not it's biological men who transition to women who demand the changes, not the opposite. Not all by any means of course, but it certainly seems far more prevalent in mtf than ftm. Non-surprisingly it is yet again men who want to take things away from women. Even as basic as their right to bleeping be a woman. I mean, they've succeeded in taking the one last, fundamental thing we had.
Click to expand...

its terrifying
 
Notgonnalie said:
The majority of people with a cervix and any other female reproductive organs prefer to be called women/woman/girls.

When we remove women and change it to people it erases women. Not everyone who has a cervix knows what a cervix even is so if we say people with a cervix and erase women from that it actually has the potential for girls and women to miss out on vital cervical screening because they don’t know they have a cervix so don’t think this is something that applies to them - particularly if these are people whose first language is not English. This is just one example.

If we’re being inclusive then we should not erase women from the sentence. We can say women and people with a cervix.
Click to expand...

Why would you be discussing a cervix with someone who doesn't know what a cervix is?
 
thegirlscout said:
So like the crimes, sexual assault, murders, FGM, sex trafficking, terrorism, the things that you can associate with unchecked immigration are just a few…anecdotal evidence experiences?
Click to expand...

Is there any evidence to back this up? From what I've looked into its more the right wing white guys who are likely to be terrorists, rapists etc. Are immigrants more likely to be criminals than them?

Or if we go one step further. 90% of crime is committed by men so maybe we should not allow any more men to populate the country?
 
HelloStereo said:
Why would you be discussing a cervix with someone who doesn't know what a cervix is?
Click to expand...

Education on women's health is painfully lacking, even in adults many don't know what a cervix is and many end up at the GPs because they suddenly feel it and think it's a cancerous growth. How do you expect a child to know what their cervix is if you don't tell them? Everytime someone gains new knowledge they started off not having it. We aren't born already being aware of our anatomy.
 
SqualorVictoria said:
Because not everyone reads the Guardian and spends all day on Twitter. Women need smear tests. I don't disagree that we should be raising awareness of what a cervix is but like I said, there will be some who won't know what it is. Everyone understands the term woman
Click to expand...

But if you choose to identify as him / he but you still have a cervix you are at risk of cervical cancer too and will also need a smear test. If you just say woman surely it is alienating these people?
 
HelloStereo said:
Why would you conflate a racist term with wanting to be called a woman or man? I think you're being deliberately obtuse now.
Click to expand...


I am not being deliberately anything. But if we take the concept of self identification to its literal end then we can all identify as ANYTHING. It is no more preposterous for me to self identify as a black man than it is for a man with a penis and testicles to wake up one day and decide that he identifies as a woman. I am not talking about genuine gender dysphoria, I am talking about the terrifying concept of men taking over women's spaces on a whim.

I am a woman. I have a cervix but I am not just a reductive person with a cervix and breasts, I am a woman and all the complexities that encompasses. A man dressing up does not know anything about being a woman; the fear of attack, abuse and everyday misogyny that is fuelling this nonsense. If we can change gender on a whim, why can't we change race? Or is misogyny less important to you than race?
 
Status
Thread locked. We start a new thread when they have over 1000 posts, click the blue button to see all threads for this topic and find the latest open thread.
Back
Top