A question for Trans-Rights activists

Bulmers said:
so can the same be said for england and moreover the uk because of the war of the roses , the civil war , the numerous scottish v english wars. Ricky the third v the tudors , william of orange.
Click to expand...
:lol: GERLD!

You've named 5 examples of wars that are supposed to have affected the culture in a similar manner to the invasions experienced by the Italian region from foreign powers.

Of the ones you've listed:

4 of them were civil wars.
1 of them was called "the civil war"
2 of them are the same war

Brilliant :lol:
 


Odysseus said:
No, look I'm sorry but it can't. These are all English (or British & Irish) civil wars except for the wars against Scotland (which was a foreign state). They were wars internal to a state which existed as defined and continuous political entity and had done since well before 1066. At no time did the English state collapse and divide into successor states, nor did foreign invasions seize great swathes of the country. I'm giving up on this one because it's becoming increasingly evident you haven't got the slightest idea what you're talking about :)
Click to expand...
fair enough but i'd argue that to call italy a young state is quite tricky to justify considering there 2000+ year old power structures in place there.
And hang on the scots basically took over , so did william of orange , the tudors replaced Richard the third. We were anglo saxon , normandy, french , danish for ages.
Aituk7 said:
:lol: GERLD!

You've named 5 examples of wars that are supposed to have affected the culture in a similar manner to the invasions experienced by the Italian region from foreign powers.

Of the ones you've listed:

4 of them were civil wars.
1 of them was called "the civil war"
2 of them are the same war

Brilliant :lol:
Click to expand...
Please explain to me the difference to the losers of a civil war and a non civil war.
 
Last edited:
Bulmers said:
fair enough but i'd argue that to call italy a young state is quite tricky to justify considering there 2000+ year old power structures in place there.
And hang on the scots basically took over , so did william of orange , the tudors replaced Richard the third. We were anglo saxon , normandy, french , danish for ages.

Please explain to me the difference to the losers of a civil war and a non civil war.
Click to expand...
It's not that tricky to justify.

It is a young state. I mean you can read about the state being formed and everything in history books. There wasn't 2000 year old power structures in place. The roman empire died in Italy. It was replaced by barbarians for long periods through the dark ages, then charlemagne followed by more breakups before the emergence of city states which had their own power structures very different from each other. There was a papacy, kingdoms, duchys, merchant republics, imperial cities, all very very different from each other.

So much so that when Italy was formed they even contemplated not having the capital in Rome for a while.

The scots have never taken over England, their king came and sat on the throne and in doing so basically rid himself of every scottish custom he could and immediately donned English styles and customs.

William of orange was an invasion, but he was invited to marry an english queen and maintain the english parliament, he wasn't authorised to impose cultural changes nor did he attempt to

The tudors replacing richard 3rd was one english family replacing another.... no big deal culturally

If a civil war is lost then the culture usually remains the same, being English people beat other English people.

In italy the roman empire lost and was subsequently settled by number of barbarian tribes including the lombards, the ostragoths and the franks. All of whom came from various parts of Eurasia with vastly different customs and practices.
 
Aituk7 said:
It's not that tricky to justify.

It is a young state. I mean you can read about the state being formed and everything in history books. There wasn't 2000 year old power structures in place. The roman empire died in Italy. It was replaced by barbarians for long periods through the dark ages, then charlemagne followed by more breakups before the emergence of city states which had their own power structures very different from each other. There was a papacy, kingdoms, duchys, merchant republics, imperial cities, all very very different from each other.

So much so that when Italy was formed they even contemplated not having the capital in Rome for a while.

The scots have never taken over England, their king came and sat on the throne and in doing so basically rid himself of every scottish custom he could and immediately donned English styles and customs.

William of orange was an invasion, but he was invited to marry an english queen and maintain the english parliament, he wasn't authorised to impose cultural changes nor did he attempt to

The tudors replacing richard 3rd was one english family replacing another.... no big deal culturally

If a civil war is lost then the culture usually remains the same, being English people beat other English people.

In italy the roman empire lost and was subsequently settled by number of barbarian tribes including the lombards, the ostragoths and the franks. All of whom came from various parts of Eurasia with vastly different customs and practices.
Click to expand...
en.wikipedia.org

Kingdom of Italy (Holy Roman Empire) - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org en.wikipedia.org
Roman until 1800 , i'll give you 50 years cos of boney. But roman
 
Bulmers said:
en.wikipedia.org

Kingdom of Italy (Holy Roman Empire) - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org en.wikipedia.org
Roman until 1800 , i'll give you 50 years cos of boney. But roman
Click to expand...
Yeah, you need to read the information on the site.

The holy roman empire existed until 1801 but barely owned anything of Italy for the vast majority of the time it was around.

You don't even have to read the whole page, it describes all of this in the introduction at the top

Clue being: the century between the Humiliation of Canossa (1077) and the Treaty of Venice of 1177 resulted in the formation of city states independent of the Germanic Emperor

Try looking at a map of Italy in the renaissance period
 
I haven’t read the responses but I fully anticipate some cogent and balanced perspective on the topic from all the self professed trans-rights activists - to whom the question is directed - that are so prevalent on the Sunderland Message Board.
 
r@mside said:
What's striking about that facility is it originally had a gender neutral toilet but, with the shutters down, looks like it's permanently closed.
Click to expand...
I don't even get why we need a gender neutral toilet.

Even if you are trans don't you still use one or the other.
 
Monty Pigeon said:
If the world were to experience a catastrophe - a meteorite strike, a nuclear war, whatever - and there was enough time to assemble a small number of people to preserve humankind, would you give self-identified women the same status as biological women?

If we were to dispatch, say, a hundred people into a deep bunker - or send them into space - to keep us going, do you believe that the aim of preserving humanity would not be impacted if all the selected females were born without wombs?

I ask, because today I have been informed that I am 'subhuman scum' for not accepting that biological sex is 'a cultural concept assigned at birth'.
Click to expand...
I agree with the point you are making. As in, the bit at the end.

You cannot change your genes. I'm all for people being able to make the very best of the cards they've been dealt, but there will always be something that's not "whole".
 
Aituk7 said:
I don't even get why we need a gender neutral toilet.

Even if you are trans don't you still use one or the other.
Click to expand...
Trans women (aka men) want to be able to use women's bogs. Also, gender neutral toilets always end up being effectively men's toilets because most (proper) women don't want to share the space with blokes.
 
George Kaplan said:
I haven’t read the responses but I fully anticipate some cogent and balanced perspective on the topic from all the self professed trans-rights activists - to whom the question is directed - that are so prevalent on the Sunderland Message Board.
Click to expand...
Good to know you aren't one of those posters that just makes your mind up without bothering to read anything ;)
 
Monty Pigeon said:
If the world were to experience a catastrophe - a meteorite strike, a nuclear war, whatever - and there was enough time to assemble a small number of people to preserve humankind, would you give self-identified women the same status as biological women?

If we were to dispatch, say, a hundred people into a deep bunker - or send them into space - to keep us going, do you believe that the aim of preserving humanity would not be impacted if all the selected females were born without wombs?

I ask, because today I have been informed that I am 'subhuman scum' for not accepting that biological sex is 'a cultural concept assigned at birth'.
Click to expand...

So what you’re saying is that the only use you have for women is for them to have babies. Interesting.
 

Back
Top