Features Australia

Now it’s the tranny-state

18 October 2014

9:00 AM

18 October 2014

9:00 AM

Why are trannies so touchy? So touchy that even that use of the word ‘tranny’ – which, yes, is designed to make a point – will have them reaching for their pots of green ink so that they can pen outraged missives about what a transphobic monster I am?

We live in an era of über-sensitivity, in which it’s the done thing among minority groups of every persuasion to trawl the media and internet and gutter for offence, so they can holler to the world: ‘I’m being victimised! Give me recognition for my suffering! (And a government grant, so that I can turn my hobby of hunting down slights against me into an actual career.)’

But even in this time of ostentatious offence-taking, transgender activists stand out. They’re more allergic to offence than any of the other ‘vulnerable’ groups. Even the self-elected spokespeople of the Muslim community, never shy in coming forward to proclaim their victimisation at the hands of mainstream society’s white, post-colonial rotters, don’t have a patch on trans folk. Trans activists are the kings (or queens? Jesus, I don’t know) of offence-taking. Why?

To see how intolerant the trans lobby has become, look no further than the Courier-Mail controversy. The ink was barely dry on the print run that contained the phrase ‘she-male’ before trans activists were smashing their iPads as they bashed out tweets and articles condemning it.

In its frontpage report on the murder of Mayang Prasetyo, a transgendered prostitute, the Courier-Mail described Ms Prasetyo as a ‘she-male’. It later referred to her as a ‘ladyboy’. Bad move. These terms are not on the transgender lobby’s list of utterable words, which it enforces with brutal effectiveness.


The Courier-Mail was slammed as ‘absolutely disgusting’, ‘sensationalist’ and ‘dangerous’. Boycotts of the paper were organised. An online petition was set up – the favoured tool of the modern-day mob, which hurls tweets rather than rotten tomatoes and signs petitions instead of death warrants – demanding that the Courier-Mail ‘publicly apologise’ for having blasphemed against the po-mo gospel of trans terminology. More than 25,000 people have signed the petition. In an irony so profound it could make your head hurt, they’re probably the same people who would scoff into their hazelnut macchiatos if a Christian group tried to extract an apology from a newspaper for blaspheming against Christ. ‘Who do these people think they are?!’, they’d say, with not a smidgen of self-awareness.

Eventually the Courier-Mail published a follow-up piece saying it did not mean to diminish Ms Prasetyo. But it failed to use the s-word – sorry – and so the Stalin-style demanders of a craven public apology for offences against language and ideology kept on campaigning. They won’t be happy until Courier-Mail editors self-flagellate for their speech crimes.

Such censoriousness, such an urge to punish those who fail to use words that an infinitesimally small number of campaigners have decreed to be Correct, is a central plank of trans activism. The trans intolerants do proud the pointy-hatted moral cops of the medieval era, who likewise leapt upon and branded despicable anyone who didn’t speak as they did.

In Britain the rambunctious Julie Burchill became the target of trans headhunters when she wrote an article in the Observer which – get this – criticised transgenderism. How dare she! Incredibly, under pressure from a mob of placard-waving morality enforcers dolled up as radical gender-benders, the Observer removed her piece from its website, and plunged it down the memory hole.

I found myself the target of spittle-flecked hate-tweets and an online petition calling for me to be censored when I wrote a piece earlier this year arguing that Conchita Wurst, the Austrian trans who won the Eurovision Song Contest, is not a ‘she’. Wurst has a beard. And a penis. And yet apparently it is ‘disgusting’ and ‘transphobic’ to say he is a man. Such is the Orwellianism of the trans lobby that, just as Big Brother thought he could insist that 2 + 2 = 5, so it can say: beard + dick + ballgown = woman. It is authoritarianism of the highest order to think not only do you have the right to police the world, but also to reinvent it from pure cloth (in this case fabulous, well-cut cloth). War is peace, freedom is slavery, man is woman.

What motors trans intolerance? Partly it’s the same arrogance and snobbery that underpins every effort to police language and squash offensiveness. The Australian Transgender Support Association gave the game away when it said the Courier-Mail’s headline would set ‘all our hard work back two or three years’. Rough translation: readers – especially the gruff blokes and tipsy Sheilas who read the Courier-Mail – are so fickle that one headline is likely to turn them into trans-bashing nutjobs. All censoriousness is fuelled by a fear of the dim, daft, fat public; trans intolerance is no different.

But there’s something more behind the super-shrillness of trans activists. It’s that they recognise, at some level, that their identity is a phoney, or at least a flimsy, one. Their fire-wielding response to every slight confirms this is a ‘community’ instinctively aware of the shallowness of its identity, which means it must obsessively protect itself from public questioning lest its facade be knocked down.

In essence, transgenderism is a mental difficultly dressed up as a cultural identity. It presents itself as an identity on a par with being black or a woman, but this is disingenuous, for transgenderism is not rooted in history or culture but in bodily self-loathing. No matter how many attractive-sounding words get attached to transgenderism, there’s no escaping the fact that it is, at heart, a desire for physical mutilation to try to fix a profound personal identity crisis. And that, in my view, is not positive or healthy. It’s a bad idea. And we should be free to say so.

The debatephobia of the trans lobby is really about hiding the hollowness of its identity, through suppressing not only the asking of intellectual questions about the wisdom of calling biological men ‘women’ but even the use of certain words. This, too, is a common theme in censoriousness: like other censors, only more so, the trans lobby is driven by a feeling of weakness, not strength, and by a forlorn urge to prop up its ideological pretensions through shutting down anyone who would dare try to prick them. (No offence intended by my use of the word prick.)

You might disagree with half of it, but you’ll enjoy reading all of it. Try your first 10 weeks for just $10


Show comments
  • Tatty_D

    Bravely going for the easy ones. Why don’t you tell us what you’d like to be free to call, say: Blacks?

    • Mark of Cain

      Nah, Brendan O’Neill is a big boy with big boy’s pants. He’s mastered bullying from his Marxist pulpit, so he can graduate straight past the “blacks” and go all the way to the big time – the Jews. Go on, Brendan, let’s hear you rail against how pathetic the Jews are.

  • TheDaiLlew

    A bunch of lazy assumptions dressed up as a paean to free speech. To highlight just one: “It is, at heart, a desire for physical mutilation…” Which might have a grain of truth in it if all transgender people wished to undergo surgery. Many do not. As for their grievances, I dare say there are many transgender people who wish to shut down free speech just for the sake of it, who take offence at innocent slips of the tongue and try and capitalise on it, but if you are part of a community that suffers more than its fair share of verbal abuse and physical violence, it is very easy to understand why offence is taken. Terms like “she-male” and “ladyboy” have become archaic. Avoiding them isn’t “political correctness gone mad”, it’s just good manners; something I thought someone writing for a conservative publication might understand.

    • Not to mention that it’s conveniently ignored that the article he’s talking about is regarding a MURDER VICTIM… like, what sort of empathy-devoid dead-eyed creature takes the “moral high ground” for the “right” to slur, insult and degrade someone who died so horribly?

      • Bayne MacGregor

        Good point.
        Besides slurs and insults are not part of the “Free Exchange of Ideas” so the justification for free speech that all ideas should be able to be discussed doesn’t cover that.

        In fact slurs and insults are a kind of bullying that often discourage the targets participation in discussion and debate, in the “Free Exchange of Ideas” and therefore slurs and insults are actually a crude form of censorship and themselves an attack on another person or groups freedom of speech!

  • Richard de Lacy

    Well said, Brendan. “Debatephobia” is a only symptom of a wider malaise across the Anglosphere and EU, but it is a particularly grotesque symptom and it needs challenging.

  • Gender dysphoria is not a mental difficulty at all. It’s a clinical diagnosis for a physiological condition eliminated by appropriate treatment. Watch the suicide figures for people with gender dysphoria. Why so high? Trivialisation like this. What’s so wrong with a little thing like, um, respect?

    • Reality is sweet

      Argumentum al suicidum, right on cue! For those who are unaware, it is ALWAYS invoked. Do not criticize transgender ideology, lest it provoke them to suicide. Men are women. If you disagree, they’ll kill themselves, and it will be all your fault!

      • Kate Gardner

        why? because you say so? Becasue that makes you comfortable?You have no understanding yet are willing to support something that is harmful to people. You’re a fuckin’ retarded cunt and I hope you fall into a vat of acidic dog shit and drown.

        • Reality is sweet

          Kate is Exhibit A, for anyone who imagines that men are women. Know many women who refer to other women as “cunts” and hope that they drown in “dog shit?” Nope. Male rage is male rage, even when wearing pretty pretty dresses.

          • Bayne MacGregor

            Actually i do, you might want to look up Internalised Oppression for examples of racism and sexism from the very people harmed by such, and an understanding of why it occurs. You could read that after you read the Science Articles i linked in reply to you earlier that show the Biological Basis of Transgender.

        • TheDaiLlew

          Not a nice – or helpful – way to argue your case, however passionately you may feel about the matter. You’ve just shot yourself in the foot, there, I’m afraid.

        • Medusa Jordan

          Any point you wanted to make is cancelled out by your misogynist and violent language.

      • TheDaiLlew

        Pretentiousum useum of Latinum as rhetoric ad absurdum, right on cue. Much of the research that’s been carried out supports the argument that the high suicide rate among transgender people is fuelled, in part, by negative treatment in the media, which in itself fuels negative treatment by society as a whole. You don’t have to think “men are women” (which is just ridiculous, and not what anyone is saying), you just have to treat people with a modicum of dignity and respect. When did “conservatism” come to mean “supporting the most aggressive, offensive and bullying stance on all issues, all the time”?

        • Richard de Lacy

          “Much of the research that’s been carried out supports the argument that the high suicide rate among transgender people is fuelled, in part, by negative treatment in the media, which in itself fuels negative treatment by society as a whole.”

          – Let’s assume this is true (I’m not trying to cast doubt, but you said that “research supports the argument,” so you accept there is room for doubt):

          If society as a whole is influenced by the media to that extent, then society as a whole is very sick indeed. Even if the media, overnight, decided to show more common courtesy, then that would still be akin to putting an elastoplast on a broken neck.
          Sick societies do not particularly like being described as sick, and many find it offensive, but tackling that sickness demands confronting the sickness and offending the sufferers – free speech, in other words.

        • DOROTHYHERSELF

          Actually if you look at transgender activist, you’ll find that “men are women” is EXACTLY what transgender activists insist on. “Trans women are women” is the mantra and the idea that treating people with a modicum of dignity and respect is all that the transactivists about whom O’Neill is writing want, is actually wrong. I thought that, but I’ve actually followed some of the arguments online and the abuse that radical feminists who did treat trans people with respect got, because they wouldn’t agree with the notion that “men are women” is astonishing.

          • TheDaiLlew

            On that, we’re in agreement. But I don’t think countering that by going out of our way to use the words and terms that trans people (not all of whom have subjected Julie Bindel et al to abuse, remember) find offensive really doesn’t help. If both sides would practice good manners and the tiniest shred of empathy, we wouldn’t be having this discussion!

          • DOROTHYHERSELF

            But that’s the point – it is bad mannered to point out that someone is wrong about the way they identify. However, they may be wrong. In that situation, you can either humour them or you can tell the truth. In some situations humouring someone is the kindest and most humane thing to do but when you are conducting political analysis, then humouring your opponent is not really honest or helpful. Sometimes however polite you want to be, there is just no common ground. If someone is determined to force you to acknowledge that they are Napoleon and you cannot in all conscience agree with them that they are, then you are not going to be able to say anything which will not be inevitably bad manners. I agree with you that you could desist from using deliberately inflammatory or insulting language, but sometimes, just refusing to accept that someone who is clearly a man, is actually a woman, is perceived as an insult . I don’t think there’s any way around that

          • Kevin_OKeeffe

            No, that’s not true. We’d still be having this discussion, but with the goalposts moved a little farther down the field, is all.

        • Kevin_OKeeffe

          “Much of the research that’s been carried out supports the argument that the high suicide rate among transgender people is fuelled, in part, by negative treatment in the media, which in itself fuels negative treatment by society as a whole.”

          Yeah, and such “research” is almost invariably performed by LGBT-friendly activists, who have decided what results they are going to obtain before they even begin their so-called “studies.” And in the final analysis, we’re never going to live in a society where transsexuality isn’t seen as preposterous and revolting by most people. The idea we’re going to be able to restructure how everyone thinks about sexual identity, so that a tiny, microscopically small minority of the population can feel comfortable in their perverse eccentricity, is quite fanciful. That’s simply never going to happen.

          • Bayne MacGregor

            1, if there are flaws in the study refute them, you might get famous like the guy who caught those Harvard Economists cheating.

            2, societies have existed where Transgender was accepted and even at times celebrated (the two-spirit traditions of the Native Americans, the Muxe of Central America, Polynesia from Hawaii to Samoa to New Zealand, Aboriginal Australia, the Scythians, the Babylonians, the Assyrians, the Cybelline faith of Rome that stretched as far as Britain and many more) therefore to suggest “we’re never going to live in a society where transsexuality isn’t seen as preposterous and revolting by most people.” is plainly not borne out by anthropology and history.

            Oh and 4%-8% (or even more) is far from a microscopic minority either. There are more Transgender people than there are Gays and Lesbians!

          • Kevin_OKeeffe

            OK, bro.

          • Bayne MacGregor

            So you cannot refute them. And in place of a valid argument you show your lack of integrity and character.

            So what, you saw you were losing and thought to yourself “Hey, what can i do to make my loss even more embarrassing? How can i ensure that everyone reading this and participating in these comments will know me not only as wrong on just this one issue, but lacking in civility and integrity?”?

            That you managed it so succinctly is impressive of course.

          • Kevin_OKeeffe

            I’m not even interested in your mentally deranged drivel, man.

          • Bayne MacGregor

            Your the one lacking evidence or a cogent argument. So the drivel alas is entirely your own. As to mental derangement thinking you can win an argument with rudeness when someones put empirical evidence on the table is pretty irrational.. but you might be severely brain damaged or uneducated as other possibilities so i won’t assume mental illness.

            But if you can’t handle such a simple point, why are you not still at school?

          • Kevin_OKeeffe

            There’s no “cogent argument” required to explain that you can’t change your sex, you ludicrous little man. Your mental illness is not my problem.

          • Bayne MacGregor

            Ha! The APA has declassified it. It’s not a mental illness. However your assertions in opposition to empirical scientific evidence.. that you should go see someone about.

          • Kevin_OKeeffe

            Yes, anyone who disagrees with the politically-motivated determinations of a professional association, is clearly insane. Sure thing, dude.

          • Bayne MacGregor

            So now it must be ‘political’ that decades of biological fact got recognised… is Gravity political too?

            Note i didn’t say you were mentally ill for disagreeing with the APA but for making claims opposite to empirical evidence, like if you said the world was flat on Columbus day or claimed that man-powered flight were impossible while riding inside a 737 already in flight.. you are denying direct evidence with… baseless assertions.

            So you are either knowingly lying or struggling to deal with demonstrable reality as evinced by the studies i have cited.

            Oh by the way, if you think you are a troll winding me up i should let you know, you are providing me a great opportunity to put counterpoints on record in this thread while undermining your own position. So i look forward to all your posts as great opportunities to educate others and bust myths. 🙂

          • Purrito Purrpants

            I must disagree with the notion that there are more transgendered persons than gays and lesbians. Citations, please.

          • Bayne MacGregor

            Gays and lesbians are each less than 3% of the population. Studies which found those who fit under the umbrella term Transgender include Writing Themselves In 3 where 3% of schoolchildren were classed as Gender Questioning because they identified with a gender identity term other than male or female, and as that was unprompted and as many don’t self-accept till after school this is certainly an under-estimate figure. https://www.latrobe.edu.au/arcshs/downloads/arcshs-research-publications/WTi3.pdf
            Even back in the 90’s the study Transgender Lifestyles and HIV-AIDS Risk cited a figure that 8% of the population would receive a diagnosis of Gender Identity Conflict at some point in their lifetime with between 2% and 4% a constant/recurrent one. http://www.afao.org.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0020/4655/Transgender_Lifestyles_and_HIV-AIDS_Risk.pdf

            The APA previously on their website under Crossdressing gave a figure that 3% of American Males were crossdressers.
            As homosexuality is far more acceptable than transgender socially currently the well-known phenomenon that people under-report aspects of themselves that receive prejudice even in anonymous surveys will be stronger on Trans than Homosexuality so while both will be under-estimates the Transgender underestimate will be likely by a much greater margin.
            And the anecdotal figure of 10%-20% of males per year at a provincial Thai Highschool http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/7529227.stm may give us a closer estimate of the actual figures, as Transgender is much more socially acceptable in Thailand than much of the world… but as it’s still quite discriminated against there even that figure may be an under-estimate even when it puts Transgender at a similar rate to Bisexuality.

            Now transsexuals, that’s likely between 1 in 500 based on genital surgery (Computer Pioneer Professor Lynn Conway’s estimate) and 1 in 100 (Estimate used in television documentary about Thailand Transgender people ‘Ladyboys’ source of figure unknown) however the vast majority of Transgender people are not Transsexuals who have genital surgery but fall at varying midway points on the gender spectrum whether those who only hormonally transition, have top-surgery, are b-gender a-gender genderqueer et al.

            As both Homosexuality and Transgender are currently believed to share the causation of Epigenentic factors during the neurological Hormone Wash stages in the womb it makes complete sense that the whole Transgender spectrum would be larger than the extreme end of the sexuality spectrum and potentially comparable the bisexuality as well. So it’s really not an unlikely outcome.

          • Hopebug

            that is because gender doesn’t exist; but sex does. And you all forcing your way into women’s spaces is more than a little rapey and should be criminalized

          • Bayne MacGregor

            Would you prefer if it were termed sex-identity instead then? Either way that’s what these slices of brain support existing https://lizdaybyday.files.wordpress.com/2013/11/mtf_brain_scan_differences.png and seeing as all people are at risk in communal public amenities and cisgender women raping cisgender women is a thing, yes even in communal public amenities: http://www.news.com.au/national/woman-in-court-on-rape-charge/story-e6frfkp9-1225962741873 as well as of course the same in men’s amenities we should all change all public amenities to be safer from same-sex sexual assault. And plenty of studies show Transgender people are more at risk of being raped than doing the raping.

            What’s the lesbian rape issue like? 30% of lesbians have reported sexual
            assault / rape by another woman (Renzetti, 1992)

            Yeah pretty horribly high. So if you are worried about sexual assault, well there’s an existing risk from Cisgender women. So all public amenities should be made safer from the risk of same-sex sexual assault by being protected by non-communal and protected by security systems to ensure that they only have single occupants. And safer single user amenities don’t need to be gender or sex segregated obviously.

            So how about fighting for a real solution to that existing problem, rather than trying to scapegoat one of the most at-risk parts of the population?

          • Hopebug

            Assault by another woman never results in pregnancy. Women fear rape more than they fear murder because they are hard-wired to, precisely because of the biological cost of pregnancy to a woman.

            By the way, not that you are capable of caring about other people’s feelings, cis is an offensive term. I am highly offended by you calling me cis. I don’t agree that you are one of the most at-risk populations, I don’t see any evidence of that, most of your crap studies are based on the murders of sex workers or men who deliberately deceive other men. Unfortunately, sex-workers are murdered at a much higher rate than other populations but that is a different correlation.

            There is absolutely no evidence that one must wear a dress and make-up to live. Lots of people would like to be more attractive than they are and get more attention than they do. That doesn’t give them the right to trample on a whole class of people like you all do. And you all say you pass but you don’t. It is embarrassing. Ironically, when I have to deal with a man in a dress I never feel more acutely female. You know some bloke with a pot-belly cinched in where a woman’s waist would be, five o’clock shadow, giant and looming over me with acrylic nails–omg. Those things are expensive, time-consuming, and tacky. Why? And me in a scrubby pair of jeans no make-up and a pony-tail and still the obviously feminine one , it makes me feel terribly sad actually for the man in the lady-costume.

            But then I remember the one that backed me up against the wall and remember how dangerous you all can be. So I actually feel no compulsion to help you at all rather a compulsion to protect myself. And that if you disagree with me I will kill myself is not a good argument. It suggests mental illness in fact. Trying to live your life being something you will never be must be excruciating but your body disorder should not impede on the rights of my class of people.

          • Bayne MacGregor

            Cis has been the opposite of Trans for thousands of years. If it means ‘not-Trans’ that can only be offensive if a, you are Trans or b, it’s bad to not be Trans. LOL.

            Furthermore how do you reach the conclusion that studies on rate of rape of Transgender women must be based on murders? And didn’t you just say Transwomen don’t look like Ciswomen but now you say we deceive men? Trying to argue using that much hypocrisy really isn’t going to make any sort of case. Of course plenty of cases like the murder of Angie Zapata show that the Trans-Panic defence is a lie and instead those murders are usually to try and stop relationships with people they knew were Trans from becoming known. But hey, you don’t care about such pesky little details as truth.

            And it’s being de-listed as a mental illness cause the science of decades says otherwise. You didn’t even try to refute the brain dissection study i linked to an image of the evidence of which may as well be an admission from you that it is accurate and that you know you have no real argument but you just want to pour hate and lies instead of dealing with anything like truth and the demonstration of truth to convince others.

            And of course this thread is ANCIENT, so i wonder why you’ve decided to throw in replies and revive stuff from last year and then make a fool of yourself with contradictory nonsense arguments that just make you look bad, show people you don’t actually know what you are talking about and so effectively convince any of the microscopic number of people that might stumble on this dusty stale thread that i am right and you are wrong.

            The vitriol is only going to help me out by making yourself look bad (which is why the Phelps church has always been so useful), not to mention put my taking down Professional Legal Expert Richard de Lacey’s rubbish from last year in front of their eyes again. So you are only doing me favours.

          • Hopebug

            Cis is offensive its age has nothing to do with it; some words mean cigarette in other cultures and yet are still offensive. Again YOU get to decide–as a man you get to decide who and what I am.

            The Psychologists are afraid of your lobby. Which doesn’t really have anything to do with homosexuality. But as your mob has started going after gay men, I suspect your cause will be jettisoned rather quickly. You all see women as soft-targets and unfortunately you are right. So whatever you say sir. I will be a good girl and stay home.

          • Bayne MacGregor

            No, saying Cis is offensive is offensive. Cis has no intrinsic slur unless you first believe that is is better to be Transgender and any notion of being not-transgender is offensive. Contextually Cis can only be offensive if used to refer to a Trans person who is not Cis. There is nothing intrinsically derogatory about a term which means nothing more nor less than not-trans.

            Psychologists are afraid of a lobby with nearly no cash but with Neurological evidence? They only fear that the lobby has facts on their side.

            Started going after Gay men? Like 1 year after Stonewall when Gay men attempted to erase the Trans participation?

            I’m not attacking women and certainly not seeing them as ‘soft target’s. Put the Straw-Man down, it’s a liars argument and that only harms yourself. If there is any validity whatsoever to your position using liars arguments will only ensure it goes unnoticed.

      • Bayne MacGregor

        Or maybe it’s known to be in part Genetic and has been for more than half a decade? http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/7689007.stm and involves brain differences that were first seen on brain-scans 3 years ago http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn20032-transsexual-differences-caught-on-brain-scan.html#.VEJe3RbESqk You know, simple stuff like Reality as measurable by Scientific Instruments?

      • Kevin_OKeeffe

        Tragically, they pretty much kill themselves regardless. Have you ever seen a trannie over 60? Even ones over 50 are rare as hen’s teeth, between suicide, drug overdoses, AIDS & Hepatitis, and old-fashioned drinking one’s self to death. Some of these people really do need our help, but I’m convinced that humoring their sexual identity delusions, and surgically mutilating them, is not the way to help them. If some guy says he’s Napoleon, we don’t start calling him “Your Excellency.”

        • Medusa Jordan

          I seriously doubt you ever go anywhere where you might meet a transgender person so how on earth would you know? I have worked for a charity that has had a trans group meeting there for over 30 years. Most of them are well over 50, all look perfectly healthy and are friendly, pleasant people.
          You really are a very unpleasant person.

        • Bayne MacGregor

          There have been studies on outcomes for Transgender people done on the subject, they show you are wrong. The one study that found otherwise was only amongst people before a specific date, when prejudice declined and medical treatment improved, so even that study supports that you are incorrect.

          • Kevin_OKeeffe

            Whatever you say, dude.

          • Bayne MacGregor

            You do realize that remark says two things implicitly:
            1 that you are forced to admit defeat because you cannot counter my argument, as otherwise you would counter my argument

            2, that you lack the integrity to honestly concede and so try to hope to save some face by being dismissive of losing which of course loses you even more because that never fools anyone.

            You can lose arguments well, winning peoples respect when doing so.. but instead you are doing the opposite and just telegraphing your weakness and vulnerability.

            And that’s not the behavior of someone certain in their arguments or their self, but instead the actions of someone dearly trying to make themselves feel better about something. Maybe counseling might help?

          • Kevin_OKeeffe

            I’m just not interested in talking to some dude who masquerades as a chick. The fact you exist at all is repulsive and annoying. If you simply must continue to do it, please go sit at the kiddie table, OK guy?

          • Bayne MacGregor

            Who cares what you are interested in, this is public discussion you either deal with other points of view, especially ones that can and do prove they are right, or if you can’t hack it you can go hide away from the public.

            Transgender people have been around since the stone age, they are even depicted in cave paintings. I’ve shown it’s genetic so it’s never going away, its a natural form of human diversity. You can either deal with reality or go hide from the public.

            As for ‘kiddie table’ actually Transgender people on average have higher IQs, one of several benefits of the Brain differences, in this case increased connections between brain hemispheres. I can argue circles around you (heck i could have as a toddler!).. actually you know what’ll be fun.. pointing out you cannot use the internet without using something built on the work of a Transgender person because key parts of computer tech were developed by Transsexual Dr Lynn Conway when she worked at IBM decades ago. So every time you use a computer or mobile phone you are validating Transgender peoples existence. So when you hide from the public, no net for you! And we are increasingly on television too so you’ll have to give that up too if you want to avoid us.

            Though, fun aside, a study showed that over 80% of strongly homophobic people had strong repressed same-sex attraction, and the same phenomena is likely the case with people who are strongly anti-Transgender (if not moreso, Trans being genetic it must have conferred a survival prosperity or attractiveness benefit to become so widespread, meaning that trans-attraction as a biological orientation would develop alongside it) so chances are that repulsion you feel is actually attraction or transgender feelings of your own conflicting with years of strong psychological repression (though you would seem one of the unlucky ones to miss out on the IQ boost if you are actually Trans).

            So you really should see a counselor in case, the odds are pretty likely.

            Even if one of the tiny handful of Transphobes who aren’t Trans or Trans-attracted we aren’t going away, we have always existed. So you can either grow up and toughen up and deal with that reality or you can be the one to go away and leave public life. You’ll be seeing us and hearing us more and more whether you like it or not.

            Besides, as at least 4% and likely 8% or more of the population you cannot walk down a busy street or take a full bus without us being within feet of you. Some pass well, others have been closeted but that’s increasingly changing. There were transgender people at your school, there are likely some at your workplace, you may even have some in your own family keeping it secret but considering every day whether to come out to the open.

            You will never be free of us, your only choice is to either flee the world or accept the reality.

          • Kevin_OKeeffe

            I’m not even reading your posts, you decidedly masculine buffoon. I am not interested in your bizarre rationalizations for how you can just pretend to be whatever sex you want to be. You’re a man, And everyone who’s not insane, or terribly confused by propaganda, knows that. The rest is just sexually degenerate drivel.

          • Bayne MacGregor

            Science backs me, science says you are wrong. Not just one study but decades of it in the fields of Genetics, Epigenetics, Foetal Development, Neurology and Psychology.

            Thinking you can defeat decades of science with some baseless assertions? That’s what smacks of mental illness.. or just incompetence.

          • Kevin_OKeeffe

            Science says you’re a man, actually.

          • Bayne MacGregor

            Except for all those studies i’ve cited which you must now disprove in order to back your claim.. or you will be embarrassed and shamed if you fail to do so.

            So, you must disprove:
            * The brain dissection discoveries

            * The genetic discoveries
            * The epigenetic discoveries
            * The FMRI discoveries

            Well? Where’s your peer-reviewed published studies that show these studies were incorrect? You need to do this for every one of them successfully as just one single one remaining on my side means you are incorrect.

            When you are done with the biological sciences we can delve into Anthropology Archaeology etctera too.. only you’ll never get as far as the Kin-Selection study as to the possible evolutionary origin of the Fa’Afa’Fine let alone past the Epigenetic discovery enabling them to create transgender mice.

          • marti386

            “The fact you exist at all is repulsive and annoying.”

            Annnnnnd there’s the REAL problem with Kevin. The fact that trans people are “repulsive” to him.

            I think a better description would be he finds himself repulsed when he finds himself attracted to trans women. Which is frankly his problem, and not mine.

            Go work out your sexuality issues elsewhere, Kev.

        • Dude, you didn’t even come up with that yourself… it’s pretty much copy-pasted from some other tired article. Either the Gavin McInnes one or the Kevin whats-his-face one… they all blend together to be honest.

          Hell, even this article seems like it was copied verbatim from some other hackneyed right-wing publication.

          How sad is that when you can’t even be bothered to come up with original dynamic original commentary to back up your absurd, unproven generalizations.

          • Kevin_OKeeffe

            Shut up, faggot.

          • Bayne MacGregor

            Ad Hominem, a Classical Logical Fallacy. It doesn’t actually win any argument you know. Here, lemme help you out. http://www.relativelyinteresting.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/08/10-commandments-of-rational-debate.jpg

          • Kevin_OKeeffe

            Dude, I really don’t think the phrase “Shut up, faggot,” even rises to the level being an ad hominem argument. Its not an argument at all. I just thought it’d be nice if he’d STFU. And I was correct. It certainly would’ve been nice, alas. But it was too much to ask.

          • Bayne MacGregor

            If it’s not an argument but just an attempt to silence another persons argument that’s bullying and an attempt to silence the free exchange of ideas through coercion. That has no merit nor value and is inherently corrupt. No matter how annoying he could ever be you demonstrate that you are currently worse. Why not try becoming a person of integrity, rather than an example of why our species is floundering.

          • Kevin_OKeeffe

            I think people like you should shut up. You’re free to disagree, but that’s still my opinion, and I’m happy to express it. Having sexually deranged lunatics polluting our culture with their asinine ideas about how they can transform themselves in to a woman, is both stupid and destructive.

          • Bayne MacGregor

            But you are the one foolishly claiming that what is true is the opposite of what all the science has shown on the subject. That makes you the one closest to a deranged lunatic in this discussion because you are the one in denial of demonstrable reality.

            Brain dissections, FMRI scans, epigenetics heck they even created transgender mice in a laboratory by triggering an epigenetic switch during embryonic development. Not to mention the high rate of transgender people discovered to have been intersex all along when they went under the knife including the very first recipient of transsexual surgery in 1930!

            Why your arguments are only out of date by 84 years!
            As for culture, from the Two-Spirit traditions of the Native Americans to the ancient Scythian tribes the Greeks based the Amazons on to the Cybelline priestesses found throughout the Roman Empire as far as Britian to the ries of Babylon and Assyria Transgender people have always been a part of culture even if a few hundred years included persecution.

            By the way congratulations on proving Transgender validity by using the internet some more. Every time you log on you show Transgender people have contributed to should thank Lynn Conway. You can’t use anything with a modern processor in it without proving me right, and your every use of one to try to claim me wrong is just pathetic hypocrisy.

            Also as the modern birth control pill uses the same ingredient first discovered by the ancient Scythian Transgender people if you’ve ever slept with a partner using the pill you also proved the contribution Transgender people gave to society, every time.

            And ever watched Wonder Woman, read the comics or Xena Warrior Princess? Yeah Amazons are based on the Scythians so thanks again.

            And keep up the ad hominems, they only prove to anyone reading this how much lesser you are to me.

          • Kevin_OKeeffe

            Its perfectly reasonable for this goofy man to pretend he’s a chick, because of SCIENCE! OK, dude, whatever you say…

          • Bayne MacGregor

            There’s no ‘pretend’ they have a brain that is literally closer to that of a chick than that of a guy. Measurably so by science. The only one playing pretend is you thinking that we should all pretend decades of science hadn’t proved this already.

          • Hopebug

            But you guys don’t act like us, look like us or anything like us. Women as a rule don’t force their way into spaces where they are not wanted. You do. Your comfort matters my fear of rape which you cannot compare yours to as you are not impregnable doesn’t matter to you. Your rapeyiness doesn’t bother you in fact I have personally had to deal with a transgendered person with a dick getting off on hurting me in a sexual manner. As some kind of psychotic ‘revenge’ for getting the male attention he wanted. What you all are doing to women is not right. Do whatever you want to yourself but you should not be allowed to harm women.

          • Bayne MacGregor

            Lol you say gender doesn’t exist earlier then talk about ‘act like us’ hahaha.

            And you argue a Transgender person wanting safety because of their much higher risk of being raped is about ‘comfort’ because they can’t get pregnant?
            Even though they are less likely to be a rapist than to be raped? Even though nearly 1 in 3 women have been raped by a cisgender woman?

            And you put your fear of rape, that scapegoats one of the least likely to rape groups, ahead of Trans womens very real higher risk of actually being raped? When safer amenities for all would reduce the existing threat of rape for everyone?

            Ah but they wouldn’t be discriminatory and yopu seem to just want to perpetuate myths in order to justify discrimination. So you have no actual intention to prevent things like same-sex rape.

          • Hopebug

            Yes little girls are socialized differently than little boys. We learn different rules and we learn that boys are bigger and stronger and don’t get pregnant. We learn that boys are taught to be ‘protective’ of the women in their particular community because what is referred to as the ‘fairer’ sex can fall pregnant and if become pregnant by an outsider will disrupt the chain of heritability. Hence rape is a favorite weapon of war.

            Au Contraire, evidence shows that ‘trans’ women are just as violent as men. “Zoe Tur” ring a bell? Besides you don’t account for all the straight-up pervs your demand to be in women’s spaces allows. Because all it means to be a woman, as apparently, our lives don’t even exist and all being a woman means is saying that you are one, and we have no rights as men have decided that they are in fact just going to be us. Talk about hateful~! And I am just supposed to lie back and take it! Wow, talk about misogyny. And YOU think it is okay to be afraid of men but I am not allowed to be afraid of a man if he has lipstick on?

          • Bayne MacGregor

            And Trans people experience socialisation differently, causing internalised transphobia, but of course you aren’t here for honest debate, you are hear to spout fearmongering falsehoods. You cite a single persons name, but all it takes is for me to cite one example and we are equal http://www.news.com.au/national/woman-in-court-on-rape-charge/story-e6frfkp9-1225962741873 that’s why using anecdotal arguments are for poor liars and cheap con-artists. Unless you can show several million examples you lose the argument. Cause of course studies alas are not supporting your claim. And with laws allowing Trans women appropriate amenity access being around for over a generation in some places with no massive spike in assaults or rapes you’ve got yourself caught with another Liars Argument. Trans people are more at risk in public amenities than Cis women including from Cis women.

          • marti386

            “Dude, I really don’t think the phrase “Shut up, faggot,” even rises to the level being an ad hominem argument. Its not an argument at all.”

            No, it isn’t. It isn’t clever enough to be an argument. It’s just a sad, worn-out, homophobic insult from a scared little man-child.

            Which says more about YOU than anyone.

          • Kevin_OKeeffe

            Yeah, I’m a scared little man-child. That must be it. I’m not simply irritated by being expected to take half-witted, demented drivel seriously. I’m just a big ‘fraidy cat. I’m so glad we got that straightened out.

          • marti386

            Well, you MUST be, since the fact trans people exist “irritates” you so. Which is funny, since trans people aren’t anything to be scared of.

          • Hopebug

            But how can he be a ‘f@gg0t’ (sorry can’t bring myself to use that word as it is upsetting) if he is ‘all woman’

          • Weston James

            Takes one to know one.

          • marti386

            Oooooooooh, macho boy is getting tough. Sounds like someone has masculinity problems.

            Your daddy beat you when he caught you wearing that skirt when you were a kid, Kevin?

    • Richard de Lacy

      Outside of Australia, respect is something you earn; it’s not another “entitlement.” Brendan O’Neill is not Australian. Try showing a bit of tolerance toward other cultures.

      • Not Australian? Hmm. Nor am I. I just thought that qualities of kindness and respect for each other were universal beneficial traits. Certainly better than othering and belittling people simply born different to one’s narrow or closed views. I can’t see why kindness to people in any culture has to be earned by the recipient.

        • Richard de Lacy

          I said respect, not kindness. I agree, it would be good if journalists showed a bit more courtesy toward ordinary people who undergo appalling experiences – I remember the Courier-Mail referring to more than fifty people being killed in the fire at “Bradfield Stadium, London (I’m not joking)” – but demanding respect is a different matter entirely.

          • Bayne MacGregor

            One of the best and worst traits of English is the vaguery and multiplicity of meaning of many words. Great for poetry, bad for miscommunication. Sure looks like you are both using respect to mean different things. So you probably aren’t very far from the same opinion.

    • John Humphreys

      I think you have misunderstood what Brendan wrote, though to be fair it was a clumsy sentence. When he wrote “transgenderism is a mental difficultly dressed up as a cultural identity” I think he is saying that transgenderism is a “mental identity” that has been “difficultly dressed up” as a “cultural identity”.

      Note that he wrote “difficultly” and not “difficulty”.

      • Medusa Jordan

        How is difficultly a word?!

      • Bayne MacGregor

        But it’s not a ‘mental difficulty’ though. It’s the very neurological brain structure, as found in 95 http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v378/n6552/abs/378068a0.html
        With genetic components as first found in 2008 (two other gene links have been found since, unlike homosexuality where the search for the ‘gay gene’ continues unsuccessfully) http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/7689007.stm
        And now these brain structure differences can be seen in living people with FMRI.. as of 3 years ago http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn20032-transsexual-differences-caught-on-brain-scan.html#.VEpV9RbESqm

        So maybe he ought to have done some simple research before he wrote that?

        • John Humphreys

          You have (still) misunderstood what Brendan wrote. He did not say “mental difficulty”.

          • Bayne MacGregor

            Whether or not he had a typo (plausible and likely) or just mangled the whole sentence (less plausible less likely but possible) he’d still be wrong. Just about the whole paragraph is demonstrably wrong.

            “In essence, transgenderism is a mental difficultly dressed up as a cultural identity. It presents itself as an identity on a par with beingblack or a woman, but this is disingenuous, for transgenderism is not rooted in history or culture but in bodily self-loathing. No matter how
            many attractive-sounding words get attached to transgenderism, there’s no escaping the fact that it is, at heart, a desire for physical mutilation to try to fix a profound personal identity crisis. And that, in my view, is not positive or healthy. It’s a bad idea. And we should
            be free to say so.”

            First sentence if typo i already proved false.

            Second sentence i shall next prove false. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Two-Spirit#Historical_accounts Native American Two-Spirit traditions of multiple Native Nations.

            That’s History AND Culture. But a different continent (though also found in the related animist traditions across Siberia and down through Asia showing it’s truly ancient). What about locally?

            “The term ‘Sistagirl’ is used to describe a transgender
            person in Tiwi Island culture. Traditionally, the term was ‘Yimpininni’.
            The very existence of the word provides some indication of the inclusive attitudes historically extended towards Aboriginal sexual minorities. Colonisation not only wiped out many indigenous people, it also had an impact on Aboriginal culture and understanding of sexual and
            gender expression. As Catholicism took hold and many traditions were lost, this term became a thing of the past. Yimpininni were once held in high regard as the nurturers within the family unit and tribe much like the Faafafine from Samoa. As the usage of the term vanished, tribes’
            attitudes toward queer indigenous people began to resemble that of the western world and religious right. Even today many Sistergirls are excluded from their own tribes and suffer at the hands of others.

            Within a population of around 2500, there are approximately 50 ‘Sistagirls’ living on the Tiwi Islands. This community contains a complex range of dynamics including a hierarchy (a queen Sistergirl), politics, and a significant history of pride and shame. The Sistagirls
            are isolated yet thriving, unexplored territory with a beauty, strength and diversity to inspire and challenge.”
            https://aboriginalartandculture.wordpress.com/2011/02/06/bindi-cole-and-the-sistagirls/

            Ok so that’s History AND Culture of Indigenous Australia and Polynesia demonstrated. How about Britain? This ritual surgical tool for primitave sex-change surgery was found in the river Thames dating back to Roman Britain http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Cult_of_Cybele_castration_clamp.JPG

            History AND Culture.

            Colonial Australia?

            Ah well there were the Molly Houses full of crossdressers in the UK which we know was brought to Australia

            “From the early 18th Century, the United Kingdom developed its own
            distinct underground gay subculture, with men gathering secretly in
            so-called “Molly houses” – illegal bars and taverns that were the
            precursors of modern gay bars.

            Molly culture was closely associated with cross-dressing and drag, and
            rather than seeking out ‘rough trade’, most Mollies seemed to have
            preferred other effeminate men as partners. Of course, when civil
            society found out about the existence of the Molly houses, they were
            outraged, and a vigorous police crackdown ensued.

            When Mollies were arrested and thrown into London’s floating prison
            hulks, they would have encountered an entirely darker kind of
            male-to-male sexuality – prison rape and sex traded for protection and
            favours.

            During the First and Second Fleet, little effort was made to segregate
            the young and vulnerable from the older men, and with prisoners sleeping
            six to each tiny cell, it’s not hard to imagine what must have gone on.
            Later fleets corrected this problem – placing the younger men and teens
            in separated lodging.

            The term Molly has been found in early accounts from the colony while
            others commented on the unseemliness of a certain class of convict –
            young men who gave themselves feminine nicknames and wore their hair in
            women’s styles. With only 189 women convicts amongst the 1,373 British
            to land at Port Jackson, both would have found themselves in
            considerable demand – and this gender imbalance would not be corrected
            for many decades.”
            http://www.illawarraqinfo.com/page17.htm

            History AND Culture.

            Furthermore and to prove sentence 3 is wrong less than half of Trangender people take any significant change to their body (we are talking a minimum of 4% of the population after all!) and very few take up the major surgery option. (as to be expected, neurological variations occur in degrees on a spectrum after all!). There is no ‘identity crisis’ as the Neurological evidence proves, the neurology develops before the anatomy does, there is a neurology/anatomy mismatch and as the first, being NOT psychological but structural in the structure of the brain cannot be treated in any way whereas the body can. So in the small minority of Transgender people who do take up surgery it’s corrective surgery.

            Sentence 4, Brendan’s view is not qualified and counter established evidence as i have demonstrated, it’s also contrary to majority of medical professionals in the area and as he provides no new alternative and all others ever tried have catastrophic DEATH TOLLS his ‘view’ is not just valueless but amounts to dangerous quack-medical misinformation the equivalent of telling people to stop all medical treatment for their cancer.

            Sentence 5, worthless and again dangerous statement, a conclusion based on no evidence and contrary to 80-odd years of medical evidence.

            Sentence 6, does he think that fake doctors should be free to spruik snake-oil treatments for serious ailments resulting in death from malpractice? Perhaps he does. But that does not make any of his other assertions in that paragraph correct.

            So there we have it every single objective element of the paragraph proven demonstrably false with evidence.

            History and Culture of Transgender people demonstrated on top of the biological reality already demonstrated.

  • Pejorative slurs, like the ones used in the offensive Courier Mail article and this one, are designed to dehumanize and oppress minorities. That’s the main complaint I have against them. It’s not about taking offense at some mild name calling, it’s about calling out stigmatizing and dehumanizing language that makes it easier for bigots to justify the harm trans people suffer at the hands of a discriminatory, ciscentric culture.

    Inventing a bogus reason for the outrage from the transgender community and its allies, which is what the author is doing here, encourages real, demonstrable harm that pejorative slurs inflict. The way to convince a culture to accept the marginalization and oppression of a minority is to dehumanize them. It seems the author of this supercilious and grossly misleading article thinks that’s OK. I certainly do not.

    • Freddie Cuthbert

      Haha, it is ok to say tranny, to say the opposite is quite an Orwellian statement. To be honest, don’t we have the right to be offensive? In theory we do, and that is an important right!

      • I’m not talking about hurt feelings here. You seem to have entirely missed the point. Allowing the the use of dehumanizing slurs in a culture significantly increases the likelihood that the targets of these slurs will be treated as subhuman, deserving of violent oppression. I’m not just talking about trans people here, this is a phenomenon that affects all minorities if it’s allowed to occur. The first step to convincing a majority of a population to oppress, marginalize and even exterminate an unpopular minority is to convince them that the target population is less than human which then justifies political oppression, violence and even genocide. This is established social science.

      • So… you endorse the idea of using words like that in an article about a murder victim? Would you use words like that at the funeral of a trans woman, in front of her family and loved ones?

        Who am I kidding, of course you would, and gleefully so. People like you don’t even see people like me as human beings with dignity and struggles and triumphs and dreams and hopes.

        Our entire existence is a joke to you.

  • Autumn Scardina

    It always amazes me when people write these types of articles complaining that their free speech is being censored. Do they fail to see how they themselves are attempting to silence the speech of others? Why isn’t this author considered “uber-sensitive” for being so upset that other people spoke out about language that they found offensive? Isn’t he trying to censor the “trans-activists” and chill their speech with this article? But then I remember that all of us hate in others what we see in ourselves and it all makes sense to me. For it is not us trans* people who have “hollow identities” but people like Mr. O’Neil who require a rigid and defined gender binary based on sexual determinism to prop up their own identities. Our existence challenges them to examine their own gender and this person is obviously very afraid of what he (or she) may find out about themselves without the rigid heteronormative structure.

    • Yeah for a dude calling out “spittle-inflecked” commentary, he couldn’t type more like a grumpy old dude clenching his teeth in a hideous death mask grimace the whole time if he tried.

  • Guest

    Ju

  • Liz Loxley

    No surprise to find this piece in the trans antagonistic Speccie. Why is the concept of treating people with respect such a difficult one to grasp?

  • Kate Gardner

    what a load of drivel that was. Yes the reaction to that headline was severe, equally as severe as if it had said ‘nigger murdered’.
    Boohoo, some white male as*hat is upset that he can’t bag on trannies anymore and fears that his all encompassing privelege has maybe been very slightly diminished, so now he feels he is being oppressed. Seriously, you are an idiot and this was moronic.
    Transgender people are sick of being upset everytime we opena newspaper or watch TV to see that we are the only minority left that you are allowed to take the piss out of in the media. When that stops we’ll stop ‘whinging about it’.
    At which time, kids who think they are transgender might feel safe to come out instead of killing themselves.
    Articles like this by dickheads with a oft-recycled and ill-informed conservative viewpoint are just bigots clutching at their right to be horrible to people and it is killing young people plain and simple.

  • Lucy Melford

    This sort of stuff sells magazines and so long as it does journalists will be able to make a living. If the public mood changes, another subject will get written about, and journalists will have to adapt.

    I can’t tell if Mr O’Neill really holds in private the views he has expressed, so it’s pointless having a go at him. He may be sincere, or he may not. I suspect he is just cynically doing his job.

    The article is certainly critical of trans activists with a strident political agenda. In so far as these people transgress the ordinary bounds of proper behaviour I’d say they set themselves up for a backlash, including a degree of ridicule and demonising. As any ‘extreme’ group could expect.

    I’m trans myself, but I quietly get on with an ordinary life, and the straightforward contentment that brings is proof to me that (a) my life is true and natural, and (b) it’s all about personal feelings. There’s nothing to debate. I took my feelings about myself to the medical world and got fixed at my own expense, and I see that as the best thing I ever did. It was a break with convention and the culture of accepting the identity thrust on one at birth. I feel I acted honestly.

    The activists are of all sorts. The ones who engage in undramatic but insistent pressure for change have my tacit support. The ones on a hate offensive do not. As for people who claim to be, say, women, but keep the appearance of men, what can one say? Why wouldn’t a genuine woman be frantic to lose all signs of excessive hair growth, and get voice therapy? So I too don’t ‘get’ performers with beards.

    The spotlight is on women escaping from a male appearance. Don’t forget the men escaping ftom a female appearance. And the ones who cope with a life as a ‘normal’ masculine-looking woman, or as a ‘normal’ effeminate man, who may not reckon themseves to be trans, but might be. All of us are to some extent touched by transness, just as all of us are touched by gayness. In most, obviously, the touch is unnoticeable. In some it is more evident. And in some it’s the driving force. Think of a spectrum.

    Articles on any topic like this one play on the widespread human fear of being different. Most of us are timid sheep, who play for safety. That’s why it’s easy to see the ones who turn their lives around not as heroes and possible role models but as a dreadful menace. Wolves, in fact. And you know what happens to wolves. People want to shoot ’em.

    Lucy Melford

    • Freddie Cuthbert

      You’re the cynical one here. He’s just trying to fight for our !most fundamental of rights.

      • Bayne MacGregor

        Our most fundamental of rights?
        Try Article 7 of the Universal Decleration of Human Rights.

        Article 7.

        All are equal before the law and are entitled without any
        discrimination to equal protection of the law. All are entitled to
        equal protection against any discrimination in violation of this
        Declaration and against any incitement to such discrimination

        There’s a right to protection against discrimination and INCITEMENT to discrimination. Other rights limit Free Speech in case you had no idea whatsoever of the subject. In which case i suggest you read what our fundamental rights are:
        http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/index.shtml

        And then read what those principles mean when applied to Transgender people so you understand Transgender peoples rights.
        http://www.yogyakartaprinciples.org/principles_en.htm

        • Richard de Lacy

          If you think rights are generous gifts from UN bureaucrats, by all means abide by them. The problem begins when some expect freeborn peoples to take the UN view seriously, and are taken aback by the mirth and chortling which follows.

          • Bayne MacGregor

            No rights come from philosophers pondering such notions as Reciprocal Ethics.
            The UN just had some people (An Australian being one) work out what most peoples could agree on about rights and write that down more than 60 years ago back when the UN was more relevant.

          • Richard de Lacy

            And what the bureaucrats came up with is incompatible with Anglosphere rights (which are restrictions on the regime), sometimes hilariously so (the “right” to be compelled to undergo a substandard education, for example), hence the widespread derision in many parts of the world. If the majority of the population of a country such as Australia, likes the UN version, fine, but it is wise to be tolerant of other cutures and traditions.

          • Bayne MacGregor

            I have some advice for you.. try to know about something before you opine on it. It saves tons of embarrassment and these days it’s just a google away.

            Then you might know about H.G. Wells contribution to the Rights list, the hard work of Australian politician and firebrand Doc Evatt etc.

            As for derision, no country voted against it, so anyone who wants to deride it can just go ahead and deride their own grandparents for failing to do a better job at ensuring their own national representative contributed better.

            As for “tolerant of other cultures and traditions” what intolerance? Reciprocal Ethics, the basis of rights, is not culturally or religiously dependent for starters.

            And with major contributors to the declaration being from Pakistan and India, Yugoslavia and Egypt precisely which points of view are poorly represented in the declaration?

          • Richard de Lacy

            Probably best to master basic reading skills before donning your Qwerty Warrior costume. The phrase which defeated your brain is repeated here: Anglosphere rights are “restrictions on the regime” – a long tradition, dating back at least as far as Magna Carta, 1215, and one with an example of which even you must be aware – the US Bill of Rights.

            Adherence to any international agreement, treaty, declaration, or pact is purely a matter of etiquette, not Law. Birthrights cannot be withdrawn, modified, or altered by the regime, least of all by any international agreement signed by the regime.

            Again: they are RESTRICTIONS on the regime; not GIFTS from the regime.
            And please learn some basic punctuation, if only to make your ignorant Aussie snivelling easier on the eye.

          • Bayne MacGregor

            And how is any of that reply a defence of your statement that bureaucrats wrote the UN Declaration?

            I’m aware that rights include restrictions on the state. Where did i state otherwise?

            That rights also include the responsibilities of the state to the citizens well, maybe you are unaware that the entire validity of the state is dependent on it being a mechanism of responsibility to the rights of citizens. But maybe rather than me explaining in little bits at a time (and having to get past your adversarial issues in order to provide you basic information the ultra-slow way) you should just go and read Hobbes Leviathan, and then the disagreements with parts of Hobbes notions by the likes of Hume and Locke and the whole debate about the State of Nature and the Social Contract. That way you can develop an informed opinion.

            It still remains true that Rights are a human invention of Philosophers. Logical consequences of Reciprocal Ethics sure, but still they stem from Philosophers and then some political structures provide a means of enacting those notions somewhat practically.

            You might also find Rawls Veil of Ignorance an interesting notion too while you are at it.

            As for whining about punctuation or my nationality, my my well if you intend to lower yourself in this debate like that with such poor Logical Fallacies you’ll make it a lot easier for me.. but rather than handing me victory in a debate by shooting yourself in the foot repeatedly, how about instead have a reasoned discussion that arrives at truths and wisdom?

            Better quality debate opponents than you are presenting aren’t hard to find after all, but a reasoned open-minded discussion that reaches sound cogent conclusions? Well maybe i’m hoping for more integrity and sense than your remarks so far suggest you are likely to provide but i’ll happily be proven wrong in my assessment of that possibility and see you actually capable of more than high-school amateur debating practice antics and instead have a genuinely intelligent and insightful discussion.

            Real areas of fascinating challenge abound in Rights philosophy, like reduced capacity for judgement, where responsibility resides in a chain of predictable causation or the areas of decision-making on behalf of dependants.

            Come on, if you have the integrity and courage to try more than the typical petty contest of fragile-ego brittle-spined nincompoops trying to be the snarkiest fool in the room to make up for whatever pains and insecurities they suffer in their day, if you actually have the courage to try a reasoned intelligent discussion rather than the humdrum boring point-scoring contests that inevitably degenerate into the hurling of ad hominems vs repeted quotes of classical logical fallacy definitions for a few days and then the storming off to try and find an easier target of bullying elsewhere which make up the vast majority of discussion online, if you actually want a decent conversation of consequence instead of giving me my daily dose of debate practice.. then let’s have it!

            I’m bored with regularly winning boring debates in online arguments, so lets try a rational intelligent discussion instead.

          • Richard de Lacy

            Je-sus! You are aware of absolutely Jack. Natural rights, for heaven’s sake. BIRTH rights. Got it? People … are… born… with… these… rights.
            They are not “granted” these rights by some drippy Aussie politician or Fabian scribblers like H G Wells.
            No-one who harbours the traditional view of rights could claim it is a “right” to be compelled to undergo a crap education.

            The only way I could make it simpler is to ask one of your fellow countrymen to draw a brightly-coloured picture for you, but the obvious candidate is otherwise engaged.

            All I did was suggest tolerance toward those with the opposite view, especially considering the poor human rights records of many countries with a similar view to yours, but if you’re not only totally ignorant of the subject but also incapable of imbibing a simple overview of that opposite view, then any call for tolerance is a waste of time.

            I wish you many happy years of successful, appropriate, government-approved behaviour.

          • Bayne MacGregor

            I’m unaware?

            I’ve been advocating for Human Rights legislation for over a decade and been studying the subject since 1986. I was involved in the local community consultation on attempts to legislate rights into Australian law and my arguments on several issues are now used by the Australian Human Rights Commission in their submissions to the senate after i was involved in community consultations with the HREOC and AHRC years ago.

            Heck i have almost all the signatories and witnesses of Magna Carta in my family tree! I’ve cited already key people whose writings formed the basis of Early Human Rights thought as well as recent ones. I’ve actually read the stuff, so why not show you have to.

            Now why don’t you try finding some arguments as to WHY we are born with rights and WHO concluded such. Learn the philosophical PRINCIPLES behind what makes a right a right. Maybe then you’ll start to see my points.

            Here’s a hint. That we are born with inalienable rights is a philosophical conclusion. For those rights to be actualised practically, rather than existing merely as concepts, requires them to be enshrined in law or otherwise recognised by courts or other structures of power or force.

            Now you’ve waffled about bureaucrats with much lack of cogency so why not try to make a rational argument instead and maybe you’ll find a way to express you views this time.

            You seem to be labouring under the absurd notion that rights only exist as restrictions on the state and make no demands for action upon the state, yet, as i pointed out to a human rights lawyer formerly of the EU, the only arguments for the validity of any state and the validity of any law whatsoever is that it exist to protect and fulfil the rights of the citizenry, otherwise it is invalid.

            The very reason that rights should exist within democratic systems, to restrict the tyranny of the Majority so that it cannot crush abuse or exploit the minority no matter how small that minority may be, also is the sole rational basis for justifying any existence of any law whatsoever.

            This is why i suggested you read Leviathan by Hobbes for the original State of Nature argument, then, cause beyond the State of Nature argument for having a state it’s a book of pretty flawed notions, you then read Hume and Locke for their criticisms of much of Hobbes views and where they wrote pretty darn influential pieces on Rights. Look if i have to explain the State of Nature or the Social Contract to you then you don’t know the basics about the subject!

            It’s good you seem to support the notion of rights. It’s good you seem to recognise there’s some problems with the current rights-systems. But you clearly haven’t BEGUN to learn about and understand the subject enough to discuss it in depth. (you are making a good case for the inadequacy of the education you received.. but you’ll need to show where a sub-standard education is a right).

            Look, shall we start at the beginning? Shall i start explaining the State of Nature argument?

          • Richard de Lacy

            I’ve been advocating for Human Rights legislation for over a decade and been studying the subject since 1986.”

            – Can you not get a refund?

            “I was involved in the local community consultation on attempts to legislate rights into Australian law and my arguments on several issues are now used by the Australian Human Rights Commission in their submissions to the senate after i was involved in community consultations with the HREOC and AHRC years ago.”

            – Why do you not have freedom of speech, after all your hard “work”? Please explain that appalling failure.

            “Heck i have almost all the signatories and witnesses of Magna Carta in my family tree!”

            – Really? And yet you’ve been whining at a fellow kinsman of one of the Barons, without even checking or apparently noticing the surname. Reading difficulties?

            “Now why don’t you try finding some arguments as to WHY we are born with rights…”

            – I wasn’t arguing, for heaven’s sake. I was pointing out the way it IS, not the way it SHOULD BE. I clearly stated that both systems have failed, and your basic failure to read that simple sentence is responsible for the rest of that patronising drivel

            Twice I have mentioned the incompatibility between the two views, citing the “right to an education” as an obvious example, and twice you’ve neglected to even tackle the subject.

            Still, it won’t be a waste of time if you explain the nature of Australia’s failure to adopt freedom of speech, be it by the current regime or the previous one.

            You might also enjoy explaining to the readers how your country’s “hate speech” laws (as with those of the country in which I reside) are incompatible with Equality Before the Law.

            Shouldn’t be too hard for a grizzled and hardened veteran of strenuous consulting with “local communities” (or “people,” as the outside world calls them).

          • Bayne MacGregor

            We don’t have ANY codified rights in Australia (just some conventions based on old UK Common Law) because the Labor government’s left wing pushed for it, the right wing (dominated by the Catholics and the anti-gay Shoppies Union) were against it (Especially ex-premier of NSW Bob Carr who argued in favour of Majoritan Democracy and spruiked the fear that in the future rights determined now could become unforseeably problematic to the majority like the USA’s right to bear arms), the Greens were for it and the (amusingly named) Liberal Party/National Party Coalition (conservatives) were against it.

            The Community Consultation was solidly successful, but the balance of power inside the Labor party shifted while it was going on and the Labor Left didn’t have the numbers and the whole party shifted further to the right losing many voters to the Greens and Independents. So they said they’d ask again in a few years when they had better numbers to get it passed.. then lost the next election and right now we have a party of lunatics intent on destroying the economy in charge instead.

            Australia doesn’t have ‘hate-speech’ laws. It actually has Anti-vilification laws, that in the criteria of Race includes offend.. but almost never do courts convict on offending. Importantly stating Fact is one of the allowable defences! Something often forgot in criticisms of the law. There’s also a religious exclusion to the anti-discrimination laws. You should read the specifics of the Andrew Bolt case, not just the far-right waffle about it, as if he’d made accurate allegations he’d have got out of it, but as what he said was offensive, vilifying AND untrue he got in trouble. The new Government said they would alter the laws so Bolt wouldn’t have got in trouble, but when they realised through their Senate Community Consultation the majority of Australians still support the laws as-is they decided not to go ahead.

            Anyways, you keep bunging on about the right to an education. If you intend to make a case against such a right there’s 3 things to deal with.

            * that a state may provide a sub-standard education does not mean the right is to a sub-standard education, states fail or abuse the rights of the citizens often.

            * is a sub-standard education better or worse than no education at all.

            * what principles of Rights are involved in the claim there should be a right to education.

            Again the State of Nature/Social Contract stuff will come into this, as will the obligations of a citizen in a democracy and of a democratic state to it’s citizens.

            Now, why don’t you try and make your case about rights and education. If you are going to argue rights should only be limitations on the state do consider the State of Nature and Social Contract issues in justifying the existence of the state and what role it should have at all.

            Let’s see if you can manage a decent point.

          • Richard de Lacy

            Well, congratulations for addressing the spectacular failure of your regimes. Regarding the Bolt case, my understanding, reinforced by your post, was that Bolt should have been prosecuted under libel laws. Any legislation aimed at protecting adults from being “offended” is legislation from a frivolous and backward regime. Nothing offends over-sensitive types like the truth (I recently offended one of your fellow-countrymen by pointing out that CAGW is a religion for pampered-yet-poorly-educated westerners, and that it culturally and geograpphically mirrors another outbreak of anti-reality groupthink – the belief that US sub-prime mortgages were “low-risk, high-return” investments. The outrage was not matched by a single attept at denial. Since over 50% of my fellow countrymen share such “offensive” views, should we attempt to prosecute the majority?).

            You only allowed yourself one major failure in reading and comprehension – I highlighted the stupidity of claiming that one can have the “right” to be COMPELLED to undergo a sub-standard education.

            I’m glad you live in a comfortable and peaceful part of the world, but if you consider the current situation in Eastern Ukraine, where the regime (one “bound” by the ECHR, as you know) has nonetheless committed a catalogue of human rights abuses against its own citizens – how many people read of “human rights abuses” in such places and wonder whether it means children are not attending school? Many children cannot attend their schools, of course, because the government is shelling playgrounds, shopping centres, offices, and families are fleeing in search of a safe place for their children – refugees are appealing for schooling materials for their children, but it is hardly the main priority.

            “is a sub-standard education better or worse than no education at all.”

            – Being compelled to undergo a substandard education is obviously much worse than not being compelled to undergo a substandard education.
            If you have any doubts, read the superb analysis in Freakonomics, in which they SEEM (nothing is certain, but it’s the best research yet) to have isolated the main factor in academic excellence (and it has little to do with schooling).

          • Bayne MacGregor

            Vilification > Libel his crime was not about offending people because if he said something TRUE which people found offensive he would not have been found guilty.

            You AGAIN provide waffle instead of argument on your education issue. Please provide some specifics about this being compelled to sub-standard education thing you are droning on about so your views can actually be evaluated and considered.

            Where is there the possibility of a superior education where people are compelled to not receive it but are compelled to only take the sub-standard?

            And what does that have to with Rights? A Right abused remains a right abused. If there is a right to an education than the providing solely of a compulsory pseudo-education and not an actual education, is simply an abuse of that right and not a criticism of whether the right exists or not!

            See this has always been a problem with Rights.. people not actually understanding them. Racist laws, sexist laws, all should not have survived a year after Rights were enshrined in law but for the constant resistance of the actual Rights Principles by people trying to use weasel-arguments to avoid actually putting rights into wholesale practice.

            So once again i point out that if you want to claim that there is no right to an education you’ll need to engage with the Philosophical Principles of Rights. But to complain about solely sub-standard education being imposed is simply to complain about a human right ABUSE, the failure to properly respect and be responsible to a human right by the state, that’s not an argument that there is no right to education.

          • Richard de Lacy

            “Please provide some specifics about this being compelled to sub-standard education thing”

            – It’s in the UN Declaration of Human Rights, Article 26.1.

            “And what does that have to with Rights?”

            The clue is in the title,of the UN Declaration of Human Rights.

            Take your time, son.

            And another basic failure to read:

            “Where is there the possibility of a superior education where people are compelled to not receive it but are compelled to only take the sub-standard?”

            – One of the most imbecilic questions in the entire history of emotion-driven bullshit. I did not say anywhere had “the possibility of a superior education where people are compelled to not receive it,” and furthermore, if one is compelled NOT to receive something, then there cannot be a possibility to receive it.

            The claim which started your whining was that the UN, as a frivolous, impotent, failed organisation, is not the determining agency in human rights. The example I posted was the imbecilic view that being compelled to undergo a substandard education (such as in Australia, the USA, the UK) is a “right.”

            For the effects on the victims of such “education” systems, look at your own posts: “This means totally re-evaluation offence within a framework of…” “See your caught up in the pseudo-rights concepts…” – we all have the odd keyboard slip, but you display an unhealthy animosity toward the English language. Your attempt at a defence of legislation intended to protect people from offence would be understandable a century ago, but not after the failure of such legislation when it was implemented in Weimar Germany.

            “Nor is the limited knowledge of the 17th century an excuse.. rights can and must be re-understood when new evidence emerges not locked in a past flawed understanding as if brought down on stone tablets by Moses.”

            – You haven’t even grasped the basics of Self-Evident Truths. There is no sell-by date on common Sense, and when a gaggle of educationally-subnormal activists claim to know better than the likes of Dicey, Locke, Milton, Marx, Jefferson, Hooker, Aquinas… yet propose a tactic which has already failed, it is time for the rest of the world to highlight such stupidity, laugh at such backward regimes, and – if necessary – hurt some feelings and cause offence.

            As with the last three USA presidents and last three UK PMS, Australia is on her third (at least) consecutive PM who is so far from minimal competence that any casual observer must suspect feeble-mindedness. Are you seriously saying free, compulsory, but appalling education has nothing to do with it?

          • Bayne MacGregor

            But the UN right is for an EDUCATION, not a sub-standard pseudo-education.

            You need to shore up your case, my logical question would help you prove your point if it were accurate, that you considered it emotionally driven, in your emotional outburst, when the point of the question is methodological doesn’t help you any. Try carefully, point by point, building a rational case instead of just a flurry of assertions without citation or rationale. Maybe that will help you communicate and reason a bit better.

            I never said the UN was the sole determinor of Human Rights.. that’s your projection. Of course the UN being a democracy (even if it’s member states are often not) it’s only as good as it’s citizenry. I just cited them as evidence of a point.. going for Philosophers clearly would have been a mistake as you still haven’t responded to my references to Hobbes let alone Hume and Locke let alone Rawls. So the U.N. was closer to your comprehension level but it seems still went far over your understanding of the subject.

            Again you fail to deal with the difference between a Right to education and a FAILURE to adequately deal with that right, so citing examples of failure is no criticism of whether or not the right exists and i’m afraid it never ever will be. That’s a useless tactic that proves nothing. Also i wouldn’t use me as a measure of state education, not only was half my Primary and half my Secondary education at private schools but i was always self-teaching outside of class and so a year or two ahead through school. Nor have you demonstrated having a better education than I either.

            To deal with whether or not there IS a right to education involves arguments about what makes a right a right and whether or not they make Education one of them.

            That some have instead provided a sub-standard education is simply a failure to respect the right (whether or not it’s a valid right or invalid right) and has no bearing whatsoever on whether or not there is such a right.

            Self evident truths are troublesome, as they do tend to still require being based on assumptions or apparent truths, and worse there are truths which are not self-evident but are nonetheless true and become demonstrably so eventually, which may invalidate the foundation of the self-evident truths once they appear.

            That there exists psychological harm that causes physical damage is one of those truths that was not always known but was always in existence and has now, thanks to modern science, been demonstrated as fact. You may not like it but it is so. And that means that the rights involved in other actions that cause physical harm are now the same rights at play in this subject whether you like it or not.

            So setting aside that a right to protection against libel and calumny has been recognised by many for centuries, the rights involving violence are all that’s needed to be recognised now that it can be shown that emotional and psychological harm is real harm to begin with but especially causes biological physical damage. And worse as it’s inherited damage that means it extends to the rights of the children of the victim!

            http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24029109 physical harm not just to a person but to their children. No matter how much you don’t want it to be so that’s tough. Plenty people didn’t and still don’t want the lines of logic that lead to the conclusion that Rights exist but they still do. It’s physical harm so that which causes physical harm is a form of violence, and the rights relating to violence and physical harm therefore apply. You don’t have to like it but you do have to deal with it.

            Same with the changes to the corpus callosum of bullying victims that have been found. Brain damage.

            Physical Harm. So the rights relating to Physical Harm apply. And only similar exemptions would apply. And the natural border formed by other rights would also apply.

            Seeing as the free exchange of ideas is not harmed by being respectful and not abusive of those you disagree with then that is no justification for abuse which may cause physical harm, harm, to a person and their entirely defenceless unborn children.

            That predictable consequences bestow responsibility to the outcome is one of the cornerstones of Rights Philosophy and is pretty well known means even you should see (unless i have overestimated your knowledge and cognitive capacity by several orders of magnitude) that it is self-evident that no-one has a right to cause that damage to others outside the usual points at which violence becomes acceptable.

          • Richard de Lacy

            It took me 20 seconds to find the relevant part of the UN Declaration:

            “Article 26.

            (1) Everyone has the right to education. Education shall be free, at least in the elementary and fundamental stages. Elementary education shall be compulsory.”

            – You’ll notice it contains the belief, only possible among the financially-illiterate, that education can be “free.”

            You are right to mention projection, since Australia’s “hate speech” (they are too childish to be called Law) rest on projection: a fantasy that those you deem “minorities” are as weak and flimsy as the average, mollycoddled, Australian activist, and that the only thing saving these helpless little bunnies is pampered-yet-poorly-educated penpushers defending their feelings (for large sums of other people’s money).
            If a majority of Australians are too delicate for freedom of speech, then freedom of speech must go – it’s as simple as that – but you should be honest: none of you is bright enough to tell others what they can and cannot say.

            What would the Australian regime do if a Caucasian woman uses the ‘n’ word about a half-Jamaican, half-Irish man and the black man replies by using the ‘Ch-Zh’ word against woman, and both complained?

            Go on. Amaze us

          • Bayne MacGregor

            Aww you don’t like that the UN deceleration had to be acceptable to soviet as well as capitalist states as well as those that merged aspects of the two in order to pass the vote? Dear oh dear. (not that the soviets had any intention of putting it into practice of course).

            Now i have cited science to show that real harm is caused so your rhetoric about weak Australians? Sorry but that kind of trickery never actually trumps science and the attempt to try it is usually the tactic of those trying intentionally to deceive. Now if the Science is flawed by all means show where it has been falsified by better scientific methodology. That’s the only way you get to dismiss scientific evidence, with better scientific evidence, otherwise its the most demonstrable truth available.

            So try again, with a real argument instead… unless all you can do to defend your position is use tools of deception?

          • Richard de Lacy

            I hope to God you were drunk when you scribbled that drivel.

            “Aww you don’t like that the UN deceleration…”

            – Spellcheck doesn’t always help the semi-literate.

            Take more water with your breakfast.

          • Bayne MacGregor

            A spelling error does not a refutation make.

            Either refute the arguments or have the integrity to admit when you cannot.

            One of the best ways to be right a lot is to accept where you are wrong and move to the position with the best evidence. Pretending that you are right regardless of actually being right?

            Well hey, i don’t need to reply to your Ad Hominem’s as you are attacking your own reputation all by yourself with your actions and lack of actual points.

            But i do want to remind the people reading this, just because Richard is showing himself to be without a decent argument that doesn’t make me right, it only makes him wrong.

            So if anyone wants to chime in with genuine questions or points so that i may prove my point or have any point of mine proven incorrect feel free to do so. Because it seems Richard either knows he is wrong and lacks the integrity to admit it or whether he is right or wrong lacks a decent argument to make.

          • Bayne MacGregor

            Besides, you forget (again a problem with not understand Rights Principles) that rights are naturally bordered by other rights.

            Freedom of action is bordered by the rights of others, my right to swing your arm, ends at the tip of your nose as the famous point goes.

            Well some forms of speech cause measurable and demonstrable harm, and here we return to the subject of Transgender people at long last. So Free Speech is bordered. Libel, Calumny… false claims that harm the reputation are recognised as abuse of rights not protected rights since the French Revolution.

            Well while you are all freaking out about offence you are failing to recognise that some speech which causes offence has no value other than to intentionally show disrespect to, lower others opinions of, cause emotional distress to, encourage discrimination against a person or entire group of persons… and so is no more protected by Rights than my right to punch you in the face without your consent.

            Sure some people are more sensitive than others.. some people don’t object to unprovoked street fights or bar fights and other people object to simply being knocked down. That things occur in varying subjective degrees that does not eliminate the right to not be assaulted.

            That there may be people who love boxing or martial arts is no argument for randomly bashing in the faces of little old ladies in the street.. well whether phsyical or psychological harm is harm, it may reduce lifespan, reduce quality of life and health.

            Nor is the limited knowledge of the 17th century an excuse.. rights can and must be re-understood when new evidence emerges not locked in a past flawed understanding as if brought down on stone tablets by Moses. We now can measure the physiological impact of such distress. Why trauma even causes genetic changes as the Epigenetic changes in the children of Holocaust Survivors has shown. Psychological damage can cause physical damage so profound as to be inheritable!

            So you cannot go on about offence as if it’s meaningless without demonstrating a profound ignorance. Offence can mean real physical profound damage whether you like that or not and so comes under the same limitations and responsibilities as physical violence…

            Violence which we still can engage in within limited and defined parameters such as the Boxing Ring or Martial Arts Dojo, and which is still acceptable in certain circumstances like self-defence, arrest etc.

            This means totally re-evaluation offence within a framework of unintended unpredicted offence (the equivalent of accidentally knocking someone off their feet in a crowd), intentional offence (the equivalent of launching a physical assault on an innocent civilian) and unavoidable offence in order to be responsible to another’s rights (to amputate a gangrenous limb you must cut through healthy tissue).

            There will of course be occasions where rights must be measured.. a person who feels offended at the existence of black people may feel genuine distress but their right is invalidated by their objection to the equal rights of others, just like a kidnappers right to liberty gets suspended in prison and their distress does not measure up to the distress experienced by black people at experiencing racism. There will always be grey areas in Rights but they are usually pretty easy to sort out IF you understand the underlying philosophical principles.

            See your caught up in the pseudo-rights concepts from the first attempts to introduce them to political power, the limitation of the state, without realising that the philosophical justification for the existence of the state and for every single law is Rights. Accurate understanding of Rights means, if any are correct conclusions, that they underlay an entire system of Ethics covering rights and responsibilities, that they redefine parenthood (responsibility to the future gradually-increasing liberty of a dependent as they gain capacity for decision making replacing old notions of ownership of the child), that they redefine all laws, all of society…

            You haven’t even begun to realise what rights are and what they mean because you haven’t started to look at the philosophy of them. What notions led to the conclusion that they must exist and what proper application of those notions mean.

          • Richard de Lacy

            You don’t even understan the Rule of Law. People can be punished for breaking the Law, and for nothing else. The fact that this principle is routinely defiled by the USA and the UK arouses little protest from those of you who claim to be “human rights” activists.

          • Bayne MacGregor

            Oh no, i actually understand it better than you obviously. If the law as it stands was simply the law than the American Revolution and it’s democracy is illegal and all American law is invalid… unless Rights are more valid than laws which conflict with rights… that may make many countries wars of independence valid, all sorts of riots and violence too so long as they are in action to assert and/or defend rights become ethical within that framework.. and so Rights become a basis for determining valid and invalid law.

            But hey, that’s going into areas i don’t think you are ready for, seeing as you still haven’t caught up with the State of Nature stuff.

          • Richard de Lacy

            “Oh no, i actually understand it better than you obviously. If the law as it stands was simply the law than the American Revolution and it’s (sic) democracy is illegal,”

            – O, semi-literate one! The US had a War of Independence, not a revolution. A successful revolution would have put the slaves in charge.

          • Bayne MacGregor

            Aww can’t refute my actual argument so must try to belittle it instead with an argument about definitions.

            If my point is correct the USA may well have had a War of Independence. But if i’m not then then the British Colony simply suffered a murderous criminal action that set up an illegitimate illegal regime.

            My point still remains. Laws and regimes contrary to rights are illegitimate, laws are not the definition of what is correct in rights, it goes the other way around. The only acceptable valid reason for any law and any governance is the protection of rights and the fulfillment of responsibilities to those rights.

            Lemme guess, not only don’t you know about the State of Nature you also don’t understand the term the Social Contract?

          • Richard de Lacy

            “My point still remains. Laws and regimes contrary to rights are illegitimate,” – and you are absolutley right; that is why the colonists (the ones who ween’t merely after Native land) fought the War of Independence. Nor are we in disagreement over the nature and origins of natural rights.

            Nor do I dismiss completely your view that most Australians are too weak and cowardly for freedom of expression, and may even fall ill due to the distress such sensitive souls experience in the presence of politically-incorrect speech.

            We differ on the legitimacy of Continental, UN-style rights, which are “gifts” from the regime, and when I posed a question on how your proposed restrictions to the right of freedom of expression will be applied in the hypothetical case i outlined, and which you haven’t tackled:

            You’ve had FOUR (4) days to defend your “anti-vilification legislation (which can include disparaging and belittling, yet true, comments, assuming you know the origins of the term), so now it’s time for you to answer the simple question:

            How would the Australian regime apply 18C if a Caucasian woman uses the ‘n’ word about a half-Jamaican, half-Irish man and he replied by using the ‘Ch-Zh’ word against the 100% Caucasian woman, and both complained?

            I suggest you are all too thick to have any idea what to do, and too cowardly to admit it.
            Go ahead and prove me wrong. No more failures to read; no more emotional Australian slop; just answer the bloddy question. Pretty please.

          • Bayne MacGregor

            The studies on physical harm caused by bullying are not all from Australia, many are from the USA.

            To argue that this only actually effects Australians is to lie. When you suggest it is weakness or cowardice you also lie, that’s not what the evidence of the studies suggests.

            If you need to lie to try and make a vague facade of a semblance of an argument then you know you have no argument.

            So then you must apply the rights relating to physical harm to all which does physical harm.
            There’s no way out of that for you unless you can disprove ALL the studies with solid scientific criticism, and seeing as one helped start an entire new field of understanding of genetics, that of Epigenetics, you really don’t have a leg to stand on there.

            As for your hypothetical about Australian law, go ask a lawyer with your own money because it isn’t remotely germane as to whether or not there is a right to protection from vilification.

            In fact you are falling into the exact same trap of faux-logic faux-argument you did before, thinking that you can argue whether a right exists or not based on how effectively or negligently that right is dealt with by a specific legislation or administration.

            And i’ve already explained that logically that kind of argument will never ever prove whether or not the RIGHT exists, it will only ever determine the quality of it’s application. Just as you had a non-argument about education you now have a non-argument about vilification.

            Again i remind you that to discuss whether or not a right EXISTS depends on knowing what makes a right a right. And that stems from Philosophical Arguments primarily of the Enlightenment though we can find quite a few classical examples which revolve around Reciprocal Ethics. All of which is clearly a subject you are ignorant of or you wouldn’t be trying such pathetic non-arguments to make your case and you would instead be arguing about what makes the RIGHTS or does not make them RIGHTS instead of waffling about implementation.

          • Richard de Lacy

            So, too cowardly to answer the question
            This was typical of the bigotry I witnessed among Australians when I lived there – they even referred to southern Europeans as “wogs” despite immigrants comprising the majority of those who did physical labour, to keep mollycoddled Aussies from getting their hands dirty.

            We KNOW that undergoing distressing experiences can lead to physical harm, but it seems only pampered, mollycoddled Aussies need to ask US academics to state the bleedin’ obvious to them.

            Your claim that you agree that education is a “right” is proven false by the fact that none of you anti-freedom clowns have accused the US government of human rights violations, despite nearly 50% of the population of Detroit, for example, being illiterate.

            It is irrelevant – people can suffer physical illness from the distress caused by losing money in a banking crisis, or by a friend or family member’s illness, or by slander and libel – which is WHY we have laws against it – or by hearing the uncomfortable truth – which is why extreme cowards wnat laws against “vilification,” which means denigrate, belittle (the original meaning) as well as libel.

            “Again i remind you that to discuss whether or not a right EXISTS depends on knowing what makes a right a right.”

            You are ANTI rights, you snivelling little troll. You believe the MAJORITY of Australians must have their delicate little feelings protected. No-one cares about the Bolt case – an internal dispute between members of the MAJORITY, i.e, mollycoddled, pampered Australian weaklings.

            You refuse to say HOW your anti-freedom of speech legislation will protect minorities – those immigrants whose labour keeps you mollycoddled little darlings in cushty lives – becaiuse you too racist and bigoted to even ANSWER a question about racist abuse of one of your minorities.

            Are you in the Australian Army, by any chance?

          • Bayne MacGregor

            I ANSWERED the question by responding to it in a way that showed it was irrelevant like the entirety of your false arguments.

            You clearly didn’t spend enough time in Australia to learn that the term W.O.G. is a British Acronym for Worthy Oriental Gentleman, part of the British Racist classification for those they wanted to give a little more privilege than the rest. And yes it got applied to refugees and immigrants post WW2.. but then what country did not have horrid racist slang for immigrants at that time? Just because their are racists in Australia (like the rest of British and it’s past colonial territories including the USA and Canada) that is relevant how? It’s not. Just you making yet another attempt to dismiss a valid point with some vague generalisation.

            It’s just another Classical Logical Fallacy, like the rest of your arguments.

            Aww you whine about vilification and uncomfortable truths LONG after i point out that Bolt would never have lost his case if he said something true BECAUSE TELLING TRUTH IS LEGAL UNDER THAT LAW!

            That’s yet another STRAW-MAN argument from you, yet another Classical Logical Fallacy. Is ALL you have fallacious arguments? Fakery? Did the only way you ever won any arguments in life come from hoodwinking gullible people into THINKING you had won arguments that rational minds would realise you had lost?

            How much insult do you think people can take that you think such pathetic poor false-arguments are appropriate to try and mislead them with, and how low an opinion of yourself and your position do you have that you resort almost entirely to false argument?

            And now who is avoiding a question, one though that is DIRECTLY relevant. Do you now admit that there IS a right to this protection? If not then stop trying to AGAIN produce the FALSE argument about whether specific instances are successful and accurate or necessary in upholding those rights and show HOW THEY ARE NOT RIGHTS!

            If you admit that there ARE such rights THEN we can discuss the issue of how best to competently handle them and a different discussion will then occur. But you cannot try an argument from THAT discussion to prove that there is no such right in THIS discussion. The ONLY way to prove that there is no such right is to actually prove that there is no such right.

            So can you actually manage a real argument?

            Can you rise above the mewling excuses for arguments you have been presenting, this litany of Classical Logical Fallacies, these deep shameful insults to yourself and anyone who may validly hold any opinions like yourself and to anyone who may read such a pitiful slather of ineptitude?

            Find some integrity and find a real argument instead of Ad Hominems and Straw-man attempts to produce deceptive illogical pretences at reasoning, or, also showing integrity change your opinions if you cannot provide a genuine argument to make for them.

            Till you produce an argument that is not a clumsy diatribe of false reasoning your every single post assassinates your own character in public more and more. That doesn’t prove me right of course, only the strength of my arguments do that, but as your pseudo-arguments suggest you value the appearance of being right much more than actually being right you are self-defeating in the most extreme way.

            You are doing a fantastic job of providing evidence of a failure to provide to the Right of Education, pity that your demonstration doesn’t help you because the failure to provide you in a proper education on logic and reasoning doesn’t disprove whether or not that right exists, only that IF it does your right to a proper education was badly abused.

          • Richard de Lacy

            Priceless.

            “I ANSWERED the question by responding to it in a way that showed it was irrelevant like the entirety of your false arguments.”

            So, it is “irrelevant” how you would apply the legislation to the racist abuse of minorities; you’re only interested in the delicate little feelings of pampered Aussies.
            Your racism would be fine if it were accompanied by attempts at debate, but you are just a 60s throwback posing as a “Human Rights” activist, as this proves:

            “You clearly didn’t spend enough time in Australia to learn that the term W.O.G. is a British Acronym for Worthy Oriental Gentleman, part of the British Racist classification…”

            – No-one, and I mean absolutely NO-ONE with any interest in the Englsih language and how it relates to other cultures and peoples would EVER be so crass, so deliberately ignorant, and so imbecilic as to repoeat the baseless claim that “wog” was an accronym – it is a backronym, a FALSE etymology.

            People who waste others’ time on the Internet by posting demonstrable untruths are too pathetic to bother with.

            Don’t waste people’s time again, little Aussie bullshitter.
            Got it?
            Good boy.

            Screenshots taken.
            ’nuff said.

          • Bayne MacGregor

            How a right is or is not dealt with in legislation has nothing to do with whether the right exists or not, hence why your question was and always will be irrelevant.

            To show the right does not exist you must show it does not exist. Arguments about how it is or is not implemented do not show that it isn’t a right. Just trying harder to do what cannot work won’t do any more than show your own foolishness.

            As for acronyms hey if my Australian Studies teacher was wrong then she was wrong but it still wouldn’t make your argument right, nothing ever could. The existence of racism anywhere does not mean that there is no right to protection from it. What’s next will you argue that because there is water in blood then umbrellas don’t exist?

            You can keep trying to throw amateurish put-downs to try and distract from the fact that your only arguments are false, classical logical fallacies without any merit whatsoever, but all that does is show that you are unable to make a real point and lack basic integrity to have a genuine discussion.

            Heck if i was half as feeble as you suggest and STILL i remain accurately pointing out that you have no actual argument and showing a lack of basic integrity, that you are arguing in Bad Faith, then you’d still be placing yourself beneath me and with every insult you’d demean yourself more than you would me.

            You cannot beat me up by punching yourself repeatedly in your various tender parts, and that’s all your posts are doing. You are demonstrating that you have no argument, no integrity, and keep assassinating your own character in the most extraordinary fashion.

            Now can you actually argue whether or not it is a right? Can you admit it is and then we can discuss how it is best dealt with in legislation or can you show that it is not in which case the legislation does not matter?

            Or will you keep digging yourself into that hole with your non-points, it’s already very deep indeed.

          • Bayne MacGregor

            Oh and just because there are racists in Australia that does not make me a racist just because i am an Australian. The entire worlds nations have racists in them, the same logic would make you also a racist.
            Just another failure at even rudimentary logic from you.

          • Richard de Lacy

            “Oh and just because there are racists in Australia that does not make me a racist just because i am an Australian. ”

            – Good boy! Only, I didn’t make that claim in the first place. Maybe you were “vilified” in childhood by some straw men, so you spend your “adult” life knocking them down.

            Whatever.

            Learn to read, then come back to lecture us evil pro-freedom monsters at Spiked.

          • Bayne MacGregor

            LOL,
            “Drop your racism and cowardice…” Richard de Lacy statement 3,11,2014
            “Only, I didn’t make that claim in the first place.” Richard de Lacy’s lie 4,11,2014

            “Learn to read…” Richard de Lacy’s hilarious hypocrisy 4,11,2014

            As i said, you keep burying your own reputation and honour deep in ordure instead of making a genuine argument or admitting a single point was incorrect in order to then move on to a real discussion moving on from that point.

          • Richard de Lacy

            Another failure by the semi-literate “human rights activist” to read a simple sentence.
            I said you were a racist because you refuse to even discuss the strength of your beloved legislation on the rights of the most vulnerable minorities – those who do all the physical labour and who have not reached fluency in English – instead, you trumpet a case, the Andrew Bolt episode, which was an internal spat between members of the majority – pampered, mollycoddled Australians.

            By all means deny that such arrogance and snobbery is due to racism, if you can, hopefully, but DO NOT pretend that I said you were a racist by dint of being an Australian.

            LEARN TO FUCKING READ!

            This is your parents’ job, for heaven’s sake.

          • Bayne MacGregor

            I’m refusing to discuss the hypothetical best ways to legislate a right TILL you acknowledge that right exists, if you show it does not exist then your question has no value and need not be answered anyway but you will have made a good case.. for once in the entire discussion but it would provide hope for you in the future.

            If it does exit and you stop making embarrassing nonsense faux-arguments and acknowledge it you will have conceded your entire main point but you will have learned how to have integrity and we can then have a discussion on how such a right may be protected from abuse within the context of other conflicting rights and the comparative strengths and weaknesses and problems of various legislative attempts to do so… till that matter is settled though your question is and always will be irrelevant, as that question cannot provide any case against wheher the right itself exists and so you stain yourself further with your every reference to it.

            So you have yet another straw-man argument. I’m racist because i pointed out your question is yet another non-argument?

            The Bolt case was about Aboriginal Australians who are not remotely the majority, but i wouldn’t expect you to know any better when you cannot manage a single logical argument and STILL only have Classical Logical Fallacies.

            Come on Richard, attacking someone else’s comprehension ability when all your arguments are false ones? When all your arguments would be an embarassment to a 1st year philosophy student.. heck they would be to a High School Ethics class student!

            Come on, this is clearly something under your skin and you are trying to save face but your desperate non-arguments are just sinking you deeper. You harm yourself far worse with these false arguments than conceding a single point ever would.

            What’s the matter with this that has you making such self-degrading arguments on this subject over?

            Your not even TRYING to make a real case against such rights existing… so what’s the real problem you keep metaphorically smashing yourself in the face to avoid?

          • Bayne MacGregor

            Look, you bit off more than you could chew, i get that. Your many bullying attempts aren’t working, none of your false-argument classical logical fallacies are.

            But hey, Richard why are you doing this to yourself? People who are confidant in their arguments don’t load them with goading and ad hominem attacks. People who are confidant in themselves can step back and try a different tact if someone points out their argument can’t ever show what they are wanting it to show.

            So i see that you are being emotional in this, i should have twigged to the projection when you kept calling me emotional. You aren’t dispassionately and intellectually debating something to discern the truth, you are fighting, and the more you are losing the worse your fighting is getting making you lose more.

            Look i enjoy a good debate, but this isn’t one, and while you are hurting so bad and putting such poor arguments forward i won’t get either a good debate or good discussion out of you, besides someone showing such a problem it’d be wrong of me not to try and reach out to see if i can help.

            Yeah i know you’ve thrown all this bravado stuff forward about toughness and stuff, but you are displaying weakness with it like a wounded animal does. It’s not hiding anything.

            So look, why not talk to me about why you are so riled up that all your posts are irrational. We can pause, get you sorted out and back on your intellectual feet, then return to a refreshed discussion and debate where you may be able to articulate your points with logical argument, and if you are right in any of your opinions you’ll be able to argue them convincingly instead of with logical falalcies that just hurt yourself.

            It’s just an honest offer, i can keep going refuting your non-arguments every post for months on end, i’ve done that before against better bullies and against better debaters. But you are clearly struggling, and destroying you is not my intention. If you are right i’d like to know it, if you are wrong i’d like you strong enough to see it and admit it.

            So Richard, mate, what’s the matter?

          • Richard de Lacy

            Ah, yes, anyone who disagrees with an Internet troll is “bullying” – yes, we all know that one.
            As I said, if you think compulsory education is a “right,” you should be preparing a case against your own regime for this abuse of your “human right.”

          • Bayne MacGregor

            No, disagreeing is good, it can lead to strong debate and that finds any flaws in reasoning and that leads to truth. Your use of Ad Hominems and other classical logical fallacies, your use of false-arguments and arguing, to use the classical term In Bad Faith, is examples of actual bullying.

            You aren’t making real arguments though, you keep fumbling for excuses that your opponents views be dismissed instead of making a genuine case.

            Try a real argument, show why these things you say are not rights are not rights.

          • Richard de Lacy

            “actual bullying” – brilliant. If this is satire, it’s genius.

          • Bayne MacGregor

            Normally i’d challenge you to show how i was incorrect, but as you’ve spent so long without a single real argument on the primary topic i cannot expect one from you on a side-topic.

            Which raises the question, as you are apparently incapable

            of arguing on this topic in Good Faith, and so have no real belief in the strength of your opinions standing up on their own merits, what is your actual motive to try deception in place of real argument on this topic?

            As you don’t really believe logical reasoning will lead others to your position, implying you don’t actually believe it yourself anyway, what is it about the view contrary to the one you express that you fear?

          • Richard de Lacy

            It’s very easy, even for those so ignorant that they think the racist term, wog, was an accronym (i.e. those who find Google a tad too challenging):

            Step 1: You should have heard of Self-Evident Truths (via, inter alia, the Judicious Hooker, and that the clearest of rights and Law are based on such Self-Evident Truths.

            Step 2: The test of a Self-Evident Truth is not – as some claim – that one does not need to argue for it; rather, that anyone who argues against it inevitably resorts to absurdities.

            Step 3: That an individual should have Freedom of Speech is a Self-Evident Truth. There is little controversy that no-one should incite a crime, and that libel and slander should be punished, but that should be the only limits imposed on the expression of opinions and ideas. Those who argue against this, like the apologists for the imbecilic “hate speech” legislation in Australia, France, the UK etc., always resport to absurdities in defence of this attack on Human Rights, just as the Section 18C legislation is an absurdity, outlawing “vilification,” which can mean “belittling, denigrating” and obviously honest criticism, as well as slander (moreover, the former is the original meaning, from the Latin).

            You have produced no argument whatsoever against this.
            The fact that some mincing, mollycoddled Aussie politicians and activists might fall ill after having their delicate ickle feelings hurt is THEIR problem; no-one outside Australia cares – we only view your politics to laugh at the impotent blubbering from Abbott, Rudd, Gillard and all the other comedians – it is deeply funny.

            Step 4: it is a Self-Evident Truth that to be compelled to undergo anything, let alone a poor education (as in most western nations), cannot be a right. Indeed, despite widespread illiteracy across the western world (but not in poorer countries, interestingly), it is nigh on impossible to find a single claim that this constitutes a mass violation of Human Rights.

            You have produced no argument whatsoever against this.

            Of course, the fact that activists opposed to Freedom of Speech, such as yourself, cannot produce an argument for removing that right is not proof that it is a Self-Evident Truth – it may be that a decent argument exists, but all of you are so poorly educated that you simply cannot find that argument and present it in your native tongue.

            Nonetheless, until those arguments are presented, there is no reason whatsoever for anyone to take your views seriously.

            Got it, yet?

          • Bayne MacGregor

            Ah Richard there’s a couple of ACTUAL attempts at argument in there, your reputation sullied by more logical fallacies mixed in true but it’s a fantastic improvement! Good on you!

            First i learned that erroneous notion (and yes i accept it was erroneous now that better evidence has been placed before me, that’s how integrity works) before google existed. Nor does my being in error on one thing render all my points in error, otherwise no-one would even consider anything you said because your posts have been woefully filled with false arguments. But hey, i’m expecting too much of you too quickly, shedding your false-argument habit will take time and you are finally showing some real hope!

            Step 2 is in error, read some more philosophy on this and it will help you greatly. If i applied your test your resorting to absurdities, and all your classical logical fallacies constantly in our discussion are absurdities, it would mean my arguments were self evident truths and i could Q.E.D. you right there and end our conversation.

            No see you are falling there into Argumentum Ad Logicum, commonly called the Fallacy Fallacy.. that if someone makes a false argument they cannot have an opinion which is correct. But reality is many people happen to hold accurate conclusions but are not capable of making cogent valid arguments for them. An opponents poor argument doesn’t make them wrong, only their argument wrong. Remember i’ve said this to you many times so far? It’s why i keep trying to encourage you and drop helpful hints to you to construct real arguments that way if i am wrong you can produce an ACTUAL argument which will show me that i am wrong and i will be better for it, and when you start fully reasoning with a clear head through this if i am right you will be able to see it and be better for it.

            In Aristotelian Philosophy there are 4 types of Self Evident Truths, you should do more reading on these.

            Now you already mention exceptions to free speech, therefore it is self-evident that speech is not wholly free. Your starting position is one of Limited Speech. The issue then is what determines the placement of the limit.

            That does not mean that some speech is not self evidently free, but you need to understand the MECHANISM of what makes the exceptions the exceptions and not not.

            The argument for speech being free in some ways and not the exceptions you already acknowledge stems from the interaction of speech with other rights.

            Many rights interact with speech, especially in a democracy where every citizen has a requirement for accurate information about issues that their vote will determine.
            Just a couple examples:
            The right to accurate information requires known deliberate fiction be labelled as such, limiting free speech.
            The right to protection from malicious injury including malicious injury of reputation makes libel/slander another limit on free speech.
            Hate Speech is mass slander (by some definitions with added incitement to criminal act or to abuse the equal rights of those in the category mass-slandered). The reason that slander is not protected by free speech is the same with this.

            Just as the right not to be murdered with a kitchen knife is also the right not to be murdered along with thousands of others with a WMD. Same right whether done individually or by the thousand.

            It’s worth noting also that Vilification in the legislation you refer to is currently specified in Australian Law as meaning inciting violence against… but i take it you were unaware of that and were running from the general meaning of the word. And where you say “and obviously honest criticism” i remind you that the legislation SPECIFICALLY does not cover truthful statements, that actual truthful criticism is NOT illegal under the legislation you criticise, that’s been told to you repeatedly by me in our conversation so either try harder at being honest or, if you innocently forgot, talk to your doctor about memory problems and possible causes and treatments.

            If making false claims to the harm of the reputation of one person is an abuse of their rights and not part of free speech then logically making false claims to the harm of the reputation of one million persons is an abuse of their rights and not part of free speech.

            That my friend Richard is Self Evident. Aristotelian and all.

            As for coercion, all law is coercive. Road rules are coercive, zebra crossings are coercive, the requirement of drivers licences are coercive. Parents forcing children to eat their greens is coercive too.
            Again which coercive laws are abusing rights and which are not stem from the interaction between multiple rights and the borders they create between them. No right exists in isolation, they interact, and i think this is where you have got muddled up.

            And again you try more logical fallacies in your summary, while it’s sad that you still harm your own self with such nevertheless you finally have attempted some actual arguments showing you can rise up to real reasoned Good Faith discussion.

            So that argument you asked for is simple, the right that makes slander and libel a limit on free speech, that create a borderline between these two rights, also makes making false harmful claims about entire groups of people a limit. It is simply doing so to a larger number of people at once.

          • Richard de Lacy

            Most of that is down to your total failure to read this part of my post (Why?), which I’ll repeat here:

            “Of course, the fact that activists opposed to Freedom of Speech, such as yourself, cannot produce an argument for removing that right is not proof that it is a Self-Evident Truth – it may be that a decent argument exists, but all of you are so poorly educated that you simply cannot find that argument and present it in your native tongue.

            Nonetheless, until those arguments are presented, there is no reason whatsoever for anyone to take your views seriously.”

            The rest is paraphrasing the bleedin’ obvious, namely that libel/slander and incitements to commit a crime should be against the Law, with the one ridiculous claim: “Hate Speech is mass slander,” – this is not true in Canada, for example, where truthful statements can be prosecuted as “Hate speech.”

            The second problem is getting anyone who matters (not australian legislators, who rely on pure emotion) to see how such legislation is enforceable – no country has managed it without descending into absurdity (this includes the UK, Russia, Canada, France, as well as Australia) which is why I asked a simple question about how you would protect, say, your Caucasian minority from “Hate Speech.” How about your SE European minorities? Should the “n” word be punished more or less severely than a “kh” word to a Ukrainian? How about holocaust denial? How about “genocide” denial? How about denial that Man-Made Global Warming is Science? How do you stop such legislation from defiling the principle of Equality Before the Law?
            One of your minorities is from a nation which still produces many nazis, while another is from a neighbouring state which produces very few – should calling nation A a bunch of nazis be dealt with more leniently than B?

            You’ve absolutely no idea.

            I’m afraid none of you can even attempt an answer, and without a real-life success to counter the REAL LIFE failure of such idiotic legislation when it was aggressively pursued in 1920s Germany, to stop the nazis coming to power, you lose.

          • Bayne MacGregor

            I read it and i refuted it.

            1, i showed how your own acknowledgement of exceptions made it Self Evident that wholly Free Speech was Not Self Evident

            2, i showed that your own acknowledged exceptions Self Evidently provided for the exceptions you objected to.

            3, i repeat the point you always FAIL on, examples of inadequate, incompetent or flawed protection or provision of an alleged (well actually now Self Evidently Proven) Right does NOT IN ANY WAY refute that the Right is a Right!

            Now if you’d like to concede that the right exists we can discuss the problem of legislating it, and we can compare it to the problems with legislating all other rights all of which are flawed to some extent or other, and we can see if there are better ways to do so.

          • Richard de Lacy

            You didn’t seem to like me pointing out that you’re educationally-subnormal, so you should learn the correct (in legal English) use of “refute,” namely to disprove, not issue a rebuttal. some mistakes do get sanctified by usage, but that isn’t one of them.

            The fact that your opposition to freedom of speech has, when codified in actual legislation, always proved unworkable, impractical, unfeasible, and incompatible with Equality Before the Law, and on one famous occasion, helped the National Socialists to power in Germany, does a lot more than prove that your “right” to be “free” from “Hate Speech” is not a right – it proves that only the over-emotional, the feeble-minded, and their posturing regimes even take the view seriously. You think you’re brighter than John Milton, but you can barely string a sentence together without a glaring error or 1960s geek-speak (“But hey…”)

            You are completely unable to answer a simple question about how such legislation COULD be implemented, and your repeated refusal to answer is because you haven’t givven a moment’s thought to anyone except members of the pampered, mollycoddled majority in an insignificant country.

            Tough.

            If you were genuine, you would enjoy outlining the real-life benefits of such legislation.

            For any other pampered aussies browsing this page, I’ll repeat the vital, simple question about Section 18C which your cowardice prevents you from even tackling:

            “I asked a simple question about how you would protect, say, your Caucasian minority from “Hate Speech.” How about your SE European minorities? Should the “n” word be punished more or less severely than a “kh” word to a Ukrainian? How about holocaust denial? How about “genocide” denial? How about denial that Man-Made Global Warming is Science? How do you stop such legislation from defiling the principle of Equality Before the Law?One of your minorities is from a nation which still produces many nazis, while another is from a neighbouring state which produces very few – should calling nation A a bunch of nazis be dealt with more leniently than B?”
            ———————————————————————-
            If you can’t answer that, and still support your fluffy-bunny legislation, then see a friggin’ doctor.

          • Bayne MacGregor

            Lol.
            I’m education sub-normal?
            Possibly but compared to what norm?
            And where does that place you seeing as you are the one who resorts regularly to classical logical fallacies, falsehoods, fake arguments that do not show what is true but at best only deceive those ignorant of the basics of rational thought.

            If i have been poorly educated, yet have put forward classically valid arguments for days and days whereas you have failed to, then that would simply show that either my sub-normal education was still superior to your education or that we both know the basics of reasoned argument and i am genuine and have integrity whereas you do not any which means either way your attacks still demean you instead of me.

            Which is it, did i get an education superior to yours in the key area of reason or am i just a better person? Either way which of us is better educated and which is the better person doesn’t show who is right, but your use of arguments to that effect show that you are making arguments that are wrong.

            My argument you called a rebuttal is self-evident not only by your own incorrect notion of self-evidence but also by the classic Aristotelian correct ones. As my argument is self-evident, especially based on points you yourself made, and it shows your claim of self-evidence to be flawed therefore yours is disproven. Quod Erat Demonstrandum. Or to quote Richard De Lacy more accurately than he was himself when he said it 😉 “Tough”

            And then we return to the repeated and still nonsense false-argument. About implementation of a right.

            Implementation of every and any right has been difficult, flawed and at times disastrous.
            The right to life? Yeah that’s still a struggle.
            The right to Liberty? And ending slavery took how many years?
            The right to participation in political process? How many years was it before all adults got the vote? (seeing as you love denigrating Australia do note Australia acknowledged Women’s Right to Vote 2nd in the world and was the 1st to recognise their right to run for office, not that being a member of a country will make either of us right, you really do need to get a handle on reason.)

            Problems with implementation is a wholly separate issue as to whether the RIGHT exists and i’m happy to discuss the difficulties AFTER you concede the Right exists.

            But that there are difficulties in legislating a right? That has no bearing WHATSOEVER on whether there is a right or not. Only arguments about what MAKES a right a right can do that, an argument i keep making, a Self Evident Argument that you keep running away from and resorting to Ad Hominem attacks to try and cover the shame of your lack of valid response.

            Aww does my use of language not reach your preferred standard? Well that still doesn’t make me wrong and it still won’t make you right. I could be a functionally illiterate brain damaged ex-con on the run from further crimes dictating to a barely literate monkey with poor typing skills hampered further by terrible hand tremors from nicotine withdrawel and STILL it would not matter to being right or wrong because WHO makes an argument has no bearing on whether or not they are CORRECT.. that’s BASIC reasoning.

            And you are failing the basics over and over again.

            For example now we get the “if you were genuine” arrival of YET ANOTHER Classical Logical Fallacy.

            Google Classical Logical Fallacies and then stop using them. They impede your capacity to make real points if you have any. Sticking to them again and again makes a fool of yourself.

            You came SO CLOSE to a real argument. You tried and i applaud you for it. But you have fallen once again.

            Look if being seen to appear ‘superior’ in the argument matters emotionally so much to you you’re gonna have to actually make arguments superior or at least equal to mine, and you are catastrophically failing to do so. Trappings won’t do it. You could be the Queen of Sheba and worlds most skilled Grammarian but if all you have is Classical Logical Fallacies then there remains only two possibilities.

            Either I am right and you don’t have the honesty and courage to concede and/or you are utterly incompetent at making a valid case.

            So far the latter half of the and/or is certainly true. And all your attempts at mud-flinging simply demonstrate and broadcast your incompetence in the argument.

            You mention your superfluous question again as if it has a point, but AGAIN i remind you that it’s value relies FIRST on you acknowledging the Right exists. THEN the question becomes the start of a completely different discussion, one of implementation.

            But even if it took a billion years to find legislation that perfectly legislates a right (and what legislation was ever perfect?) or even if it were never accomplished that still wouldn’t show the right wasn’t a right. It’s not like Libel or Slander or any nations Justice System is working perfectly is it.

            Actually once you give that concession in order for us to move to the question you cling to as if it would make a point i could just leave the argument, my point proven and the argument over. But i won’t. I’ll happily state on the record that if you concede the argument and acknowledge the Right exists i will remain to discuss the difficulties of legislating it and all other rights in a Good Faith discussion about what ways may best do so and how current laws the world over might be improved.

            But your question IS irrelevant and will REMAIN irrelevant till you concede that the Right exists.

            And if by some miracle you gain the capacity to make genuine reasoned arguments and show that what makes Rights Rights does not make this a Right THEN your argument would STILL be irrelevant.

            Do some reading, educate yourself on the basics of reasoned arguments, stop shooting yourself in the foot with your reliance on Classical Logical Fallacies (heck the very first time i pointed out to you that you had used one you lost the one excuse of ignorance that allowed you to use one in Good Faith, so lets add Stop arguing in Bad Faith), gain a little bit of integrity instead of corrupting and demeaning yourself.

            Cause you still are presenting fake arguments. And whether your opinion is right or wrong, your arguments are wrong. You can find lists of Classical Logical Fallacies with a quick google, even cute memes of many of the ones you smash yourself in the face by using.

            Spend 10 minutes reading them and 30 thinking them through and maybe, just maybe, if i am wrong you can show it, and if i’m not you can become a person of honour and integrity. Either would be better for you than now.

            (Hint: I’ve even knowingly made some deliberately flawed arguments myself in our time together just to give you some practice at genuine reasoning if you become ready, they don’t cripple my key argument but finding them would give you some practice.)

            So c’mon, try real reasoned logical cogent argument, try integrity. You want to be better than me? Need to be? Then rise up to my level of rational thought and argument first and then go higher. It’s possible, i’m not the worlds master at this, just currently better than you.

            Show genuinely without fallacy in what makes a right a right that this is not a right, or concede that it is a right and the discussion can move to how to implement that right.

          • Bayne MacGregor

            Actually i’m starting to feel a little guilty that maybe i’m having fun each morning with my coffee at your expense, maybe rather than telling you to go learn to not be fallacious i should help you out.
            https://bookofbadarguments.com/ here this will help. It has nice pictures and explains clearly why each of the arguments you have used is false.

          • Richard de Lacy

            And STILL the question defeats you.

            No-one will “bully” you if you get the answer wrong.

          • Bayne MacGregor

            No the question remains irrelevant, it’s about APPLICATION of a right, you can’t show the Right does not exist with it, and unless you admit the Right exists your question has no point nor value, you try to distract people from your inability to show the Right doesn’t exist or admit that it does.

            Admit the right exists and i’ll look at your question, show that it does not and I won’t ever have to, i merely await your display of honesty and integrity…. care to show some?

          • Bayne MacGregor

            Furthermore as the legislation about discrimination on matters of gender and sexuality are different from that on race in this area your question is even more irrelevant unless the Right exists and then we could argue as to which better protects the right and why.

            So, admit the Right exists (or show that it does not) and we can discuss quality of application (or be at an end).

            Unless you wish to continue to demonstrate a lack of honesty, a lack of integrity, a lack of personal character, a lack of (to use the colloquial expression) “Ticker”.

            What are you so afraid of that you keep avoiding the actual debate? Do you know your position is wrong or merely have enough doubt in it to be uncertain of a capacity to show it is right?

          • Richard de Lacy

            Yep, since all of you are too thick to answer the question, by all means spend every morning not answering the question.

            When you want to support some legislation which has real-life benefits for real-life people, rather than merely gives an emotional boost to pampered aussies, let us know.

          • Bayne MacGregor

            But you haven’t answered the first question Richard.
            Any answer i give won’t have any bearing on whether the (self-evident) RIGHT exists, so your question remains irrelevant till that matter is settled. And your focusing on it remains a pathetic and unsuccessful distraction attempt to avoid admitting your own failure.

            Your question is just your pitiful excuse not to answer the REAL question at hand, your avoidance of recognising the right EXISTS or explaining how it does not.

            The cart goes behind the horse Richard, not in front of it. Settle the first matter to make the following one that relies upon the first one relevant.

            If you were competent, instead of trying to hide from answering the relevant question with your irrelevant one, if you had integrity and just really wanted to discuss application issues you could have admited that in principle the right exists but in practice is impossible to actualize. If you did that ages ago you could have saved lots of face. But instead you insist it does not and in lieu of a real argument offer up yet another false argument.

            Your every ‘answer the question’ jibe or demand is unsuccessful in your attempt to goad and deceive, merely heard truthfully, as the mewling pleading of desperate attempts to avoid the one put to you first.

            I reiterate, admit the right exists and THEN, initial argument over and your defeat in the first argument given i will HAPPILY promise to discuss at length the topic of application and its practicalities and challenges.

            I have not said that existing legislation is flawless and will happily discuss the differences between the legislation on Race and that on Gender, Gender Identity and Sexuality in Australia and the rest of the world in honest earnest discussion to find the best way of protecting this Right within the context of other Rights.

            If that’s the discussion you want INSTEAD of one of whether the right exists then all you need to do is gain some pride and honesty and integrity and simply admit that the right does indeed exist but that you have problems with some ways that the right is attempted to be protected in legislation. There’s infinitely less shame in such an admission than in your constant faux-arguments.

            Think of all we could discuss, the extent of religious exemptions and how much is needed to protect the right to religious practice, the reasons behind the defining vilification as inciting-violence-towards and how legitimate that is, whether protection from discrimination means that affirmative action cannot be used in practice or principal or whether that constitutes unjust discrimination, the problem of covert rather than overt discrimination and the difficulty policing minor abuses of rights… oh so many details we could discuss…. it’s not that i’m unwilling to…

            It just doesn’t matter one iota if you can ACTUALLY show the right does not exist, so i am just waiting for you to show it does not, making that entire lot superfluous, or admit that it does in which case we could discuss that cornucopia of matters.

            So, stop beating around the bush. Stop running away. Show how, in what makes a right a right, that this is not a right. Show how it is not mass-slander, show that it is not a scaled-up version of an existing right, show that my claim that it is Self Evident by Aristotelian measure of Self Evident is incorrect.

            Or admit that it is a right and we can then discuss how that right operates in conjunction with other rights and different issues with legislation.

            Settle the first matter and either make the second unnecessary or enable it’s discussion.

            Don’t blame me for having the rational capacity to recognise you need to answer the question put to you first for yours to me to matter. And if you’d like to prove your assertion that i cannot or am unwilling to answer you only need to resolve the first matter in order to then put those claims to the test 🙂

            Want me to answer your question you first need to answer the one i put to you first. And your every claim of cowardise and stupidity you make of course applies more aptly to you if to anyone when your very question was an attempt to duck the pre-existing question. Hypocrisy does seem to be a hallmark you intend tattooing on your reputation.

            How much are you going to self-mutilate your character before you gain enough moral strength to answer the actual relevant question first?

          • Richard de Lacy

            That’s because you’re not part of the professio; you’re an activist.

            If you cannot produce an absurdity-free argument against the right of Freedom of Speech (and you can’t), and you cannot answer a simple question about how your idiotic legislation can ever be compatible with reality, then you fail.

            Please remember: Australia doesn’t matter – it is an insignificant country run by emotional cry-babies.
            If you want anyone else in the world to convert to the Australian view, you need to post an argument about the real-life benefit of implememnting the policies you support.

          • Bayne MacGregor

            1, i don’t NEED to make any argument absurd or otherwise against the right of freedom of speech because all rights are limited by interaction with other rights and YOU YOURSELF acknowledged the key limitations on it germane to this discussion (libel and slander).

            2, i showed it was Self Evident that the limitations that YOU YOURSELF acknowledged on the Right logically lead inevitably and inexorably to exactly what you are objecting to.

            3, therefore you must show that there is no right to protection from Slander and Libel, you must show that YOU were wrong about those exceptions otherwise the MASS-Slander/Libel objected to is simply a multiple-count version of an abuse of peoples Rights that YOU YOURSELF said exists.

            So you already defeated yourself and if you want to now defeat your defeat of yourself you’ll have to defeat yourself to defeat your defeat of yourself.. damn that’s hilarious!

            4, the more you goad the more you show your ineptitude and lack of character. And we can discuss practicality AFTER you acknowledge the right exists, there’s no point in doing so till after you do, and no amount of premature argument on your part will make that so no matter how eager you are.

          • Richard de Lacy

            Let us know when you can align your thoughts with the real world.
            Looking forward to the G20

          • Bayne MacGregor

            You can’t choose or determine which of your contradictory statements was wrong? Or just have too fragile an ego to admit being wrong at all?

            That would be amusing, though quite common and ordinary, if you show such brittle fragility and emotionalism after all your remarks about others not being tough enough and being emotional.

          • Richard de Lacy

            And another refusal to answer the question.

            Don’t blubber about why you won’t answer the question.

            Answer it.

          • Bayne MacGregor

            No YOU answer the FIRST question upon the possible answer your very question DEPENDS.

            In fact it is utterly hypocritical of you to insist i answer the question you raise in avoidance of answering my question which precedes yours.

            So then follow your own advice:
            “Don’t blubber about why you won’t answer the question.

            Answer it.”

          • Bayne MacGregor

            Hilariously all your arguments end up self-defeating.

            Your definition of Self Evident goes against you instead of me.

            Your admission of limitations on speech is the very same basis of the limitation you object to.

            And you hypocritically throw insults about my not answering a question which you asked to avoid answering a question in the first place, one upon which the very relevance of your question depends making answering it before you answer the one put to you irrational and absurd, and your every criticism of me just another condemnation of your self instead.

            What has your foot ever done to you that you keep shooting it for?

          • Richard de Lacy

            As I said, simply post an argument without absurdities, such as MASS SLANDER (your own words)

          • Bayne MacGregor

            How is mass slander absurd?
            Mass violation of the right to life is not absurd, from mass-murder to Genocide it exists.
            Slander one person you slander one person, slander a family and you slander several persons, slander a city and you slander thousands or millions of people.

            You just need to make a false accusation about a grouping of people that harms or may harm the reputation of those people in any audience that receives the slanderous publication/communication. EASY!

            To suggest mass slander is absurd is itself an absurd suggestion, of COURSE mass slander is possible. It is Self Evident that mass slander is possible and not absurd. Self Evident in the full classic Aristotelian definition of Self Evident might i add.

          • Bayne MacGregor

            You still haven’t answered the question put to you first Richard, every post you make without doing so damns you even further as a hypocrite, you can change and redeem yourself, take the path of integrity and stop the reputation self-harm.

          • Richard de Lacy

            I#ve forgotten what it was. Are you saying there is a possibility that you will cease to dodge the question, if I answer one of yours?

            I hope so.

            Fire away

          • Bayne MacGregor

            I never dodged the question. I said that it’s pointless because you asked it as an answer to my question and it doesn’t answer it, never can answer it, and without your answer it’s wrong for me to answer your question till the premise on which it is based is sorted!

            I asked you to show, in what makes a right a right, that this alleged right is not a right.

            If you show the right does not exist then details about implementation are valueless.

            If you concede it does exist then the first argument is ended, and i can happily discuss the pros and cons of various legislative attempts to implement the right step by step.

            But arguing about details of implmentation has no bearing on whether the right exists, it’d be like suggesting that imperfect firefighting techniques meant that Water didnt exist.

            Somewhere you picked up some shockingly bad tactics of rhetoric that are deceptive and fallacious rather than determine and demonstrate truth, it’s corruptive to your thinking. You may want to revisit (or visit if your education was woeful enough to omit it) some of the Classical Greek Philosophers to help you make valid arguments.

          • Richard de Lacy

            We know you have reading difficulties, but for God’s sake, post the question, concisely, clearl;y, without burying it in all that snivelling Aussie crap.
            WHICh “right”?

          • Bayne MacGregor

            I have reading difficulties?
            Dear Richard i have posted you INSTRUCTIONS on how to make classically valid arguments and LISTS on what are fallacious ones along with WHY they are false and you STILL can’t make genuine arguments.

          • Richard de Lacy

            “Dear Richard i have posted you (sic) INSTRUCTIONS ”

            – No-one takes instructions from semi-literate, punctuation-averse trollss, so that was a bit silly.

          • Bayne MacGregor

            More Sophistry? More style over substance? Decorated lies better than plain facts? Oh cousin your cognitive decrepitude is really tragic. Your soul (in the non-theocratic Socratic sense) really is abused and corrupted. I remain correct and you remain enmeshed in some of the worst of foolishness.

            I hate to think of the untruths you have been convinced by, the honey-tongued cons and quackery manipulations and propaganda you have swallowed whole unthinkingly when you are so incapable of telling truth from untruth that you dismiss things based on their surface presentation.

            Come on Richard, time to learn how to think accurately, that’s where you are failing in some of the worst and most clichéd ways.

          • Richard de Lacy

            That would be a “NO,” then.

            It’s a shame you’re too cowardly and clueless to answer a simple question, since you obviously want to convert less emotional, more rational nations to your little cause.

            Still, if you can’t state how your views could ever be applied in the real world, then you have no case of any interest to the rest of the world.

            It might suit Australia, but even if over 50% of the population agree with you, it has not been tested by a vote – indeedd, your current clown had to pretend he would repeal 18C in order to get votes.

          • Bayne MacGregor

            I answer questions with logic and truths, that you cannot comprehend that makes you clueless not i. Show the Right is not a right and your question has no value, concede it is and it becomes a new discussion. So your question is deferred indefinitely till that solution upon which it depends is first provided.

            The only cowardice and cluelessness is your own in not resolving the first element before trying to move on to the second which depends entirely upon the first. You are avoiding the first question. Making you a hypocrite and a fool and a coward and clueless all together.

            And as for your avoiding-the-issue aside the clown was trying to get special-interest votes with that policy, not majority ones, they only dropped plans to change that law when the senate consultations showed the majority had voted for him on other issues.

          • Richard de Lacy

            “I answer questions with logic and truths,”

            – Which is why you refuse to answer a simp,le question. Never mind.

          • Bayne MacGregor

            No it’s why i defer an otherwise utterly irrelevant one till after you concede on the premise on which it’s based.

            You are the one refusing to answer the prior question.
            By your own arguments you are:
            a coward
            clueless
            as well as a hypocrite

            Unless you now say were wrong in those (pseudo) arguments? 😉

            Hilariously i’m the one making rational arguments, and you the irrational emotive ones. You have a projection issue cousin.

          • Richard de Lacy

            That’s what I said: You avoid the question because you deem the main principle underpinning the entire judicial machinery as “utterly irrelevant,” and until you conquer your little problem, you have nothing of value to add to the discussion.

          • Bayne MacGregor

            I said no such thing. Nor was it an unstated premise either.

            You merely have to concede and accept, or debate even, the premise and resolve it first.

            You are dismissing as utterly irrelevant what makes a right a right. That’s your little problem cousin.

            If the Right doesn’t exist the legislative details are unimportant, only if it does do they matter.

          • Richard de Lacy

            I predict that your next bout of blubbering will also fail to address the simple question I set you.
            Off you go…

          • Bayne MacGregor

            Straw-Man Classical Logical Fallacy.
            Hypocrisy, you haven’t answered the first Simple (simpler in fact) question.
            You are self-refuting with your OWN blubbering.
            You lose another round.

            Liars arguments aren’t serving you well Richard. Try gaining some integrity, ethical and intellectual.

          • Richard de Lacy

            I got that one right.
            No-one else is reading this, so why can’t you even attempt an answer?

          • Bayne MacGregor

            1, nope. You just proved you are a hypocrite again.
            2, several people I know do, every day 🙂 we laugh about it every day

            3, once the question becomes relevant i’ll address it. but
            a) it’s a separate argument and cannot be relevant to the question at hand
            b) while you dodge the first question i owe you no reply
            c) your answer to my earlier question determines the premise of yours and you must concede the entire argument at hand for your new argument to even take place

            You lost this point long ago, your every repetition after i first pointed these points out demonstrates your incompetence to make a valid argument (even when given links to how to make valid arguments!)
            Quod Erat Demonstrandum.

          • Bayne MacGregor

            Also my hypocritical cousin, once again you damn yourself.
            “clearl;y,”
            Uh-oh you attack me for spelling yet with a semi-colon inside a word of your own just a single post earlier?
            “WHICh”
            And drop your capitalisation for emphasis before your word even finishes?

            By your own arguments you are defeated, again, and again, and again.

          • Bayne MacGregor

            The question is:

            “HOW, in what makes a right a right and that which is not a right not a right, is the alleged right in question not a right as you have claimed OR do you now retract that claim and acknowledge that it is in principle a right and you now wish to discuss issues of application of that existing right in legislation?”

            Please ensure any answer to the first part of the question is both sound and valid (using the terms as per classical philosophy) or your answer will not be able to be correct.

            If you require assistance in this please google Logical Thinking, there are some excellent lectures on the subject on youtube for students that can help you.

          • Richard de Lacy

            These two words, alone or in combination, should not defeat you: WHICH RIGHT? Name the “alleged right in question”

            You don’t have the punctuation skills for complex sentences, so – in addition to avoiding the clear and basic question I set you many days ago – ASH … THE … QUESTION.

            Name the “right” to which you allude in the midst of that semi0literate drivel.
            I’ll help you:
            Are you on about the “right” to be compelled to undergo state education?
            YES or NO?
            Can you manange YES or NO?

          • Bayne MacGregor

            Both Yes and No.

            Oh dear cousin, I’m sorry to point out non-Aristotelian logic can still be valid logic when you are overall failing Aristotelian logic but there can be more than binary answers to some logical questions.

            You again show yourself terribly ignorant (in the Socratic sense) with your sophistry fuss about presentation and entire incompetence on the substance that shows a claim is true or false. Your every post does provide ample evidence for your claim that your education was substandard, but that’s no attack on he right but evidence that your right to an education was abused as i constantly and irrefutably point out. I’m sad to hear, cousin, that you were so failed. I learned to make valid arguments at age 3.
            And your every pointless criticism simply puts you down further, for if i am semi-literate and yet utterly defeating your pathetic pseudo-arguments with simple basic logic points any beginner could make then it further insults you. Like someone bragging about being an expert boxer trying to criticise the technique of a cripple who keeps knocking the ‘expert’ down round after round.

            I am in the obvious context of the discussion focussing on another right primarily (what was your question about? Are you suffering, however your failure to make valid arguments against all the rights you have mewled against like a feeble kitten have all involved the same logically false argument, so my point is to all those also.

            Come on cousin, time for you to catch up with where i was at when i was 3 years old.

          • Richard de Lacy

            Again, but without all the Aussie blubbering.

          • Bayne MacGregor

            No blubbering is in there cousin, plenty of Classical Greek Philosophy: the foundation of Western Civilisation is though Am i talking too far over your head? Don’t know what Aristotelian Logic and Non-Aristotelian Logic are? Don’t know the difference between a Sound argument and a Valid one? Likely not, because you evidently don’t know a thing about the subject you are trying to discuss.

            Shall we go step by step through the ignorancess and I shall elucidate?

            At which term do you stumble cousin?

          • Richard de Lacy

            Reality. Your opinion.

            Make the two compatible.

            Off you go…

          • Bayne MacGregor

            Logic. Your argument.

            Make the two compatible.

            Off you go…
            (issue of the right’s in-principle existence needs determining first and burden-of-proof is on you first for your claim it does not.)

          • Richard de Lacy

            Since you were unable to read the question, and unable to locate the part which defeated you, I can’t help you.

          • Bayne MacGregor

            And yet i can and have shown where you are wrong countless times.
            False Premise, but True Reasoning, would lead to a False but Reasonable conclusion.. but you have False Reasoning too.

            Come on Richard, all your arguments, every one of them, are false ones explained as false in this book. https://bookofbadarguments.com/

            Your question cannot defeat me because it debates a specific legislative attempt to deal with an alleged right, and so can at best show that specific attempt failed but cannot whatsoever falsify the right itself. The first question is the Premise upon which yours utterly DEPENDS. It’s a separate debate.

            Your not even IN the relevant debate, and to get the one you want logically requires conceding the one you are in, and cannot defeat the one you are in.

            Your argument isn’t just Unsound it’s Invalid!
            http://www.iep.utm.edu/val-snd/
            Q.E.D. Richard. Quod Erat Demonstrandum. Self Evident (by Aristotelian and your own incorrect definition).

            Learn to think and reason Roger, not just bluff. All you have is nonsensical bluff and bluster, not a single cogent legitimate logical point in the entirety of our interactions.

            The book will help you, the link will too. Come on, rise up to basic 1st year university student on their 1st day of class level on this subject Richard. Get to the level of those lucky kids who get Ethics and Critical Reasoning classes in primary and high school. Get to where i was at age 3 Richard. Basic rudimentary simple logic, you cannot be correct without it.

            Your nonsense is insulting poor old John, he must be spinning in his grave so fast if we exhumed him, wrapped him in a copper coil and put another round the coffin and hooked it to the grid we could power a city with the electricity generated.

            Follow the links Richard, get the key missing part of your basic education. Start catching up. Do the right thing by yourself and our shared family.

            At least learn to make a valid but unsound argument so you can lose with a shred of honour without shame.

          • Richard de Lacy

            None of that hysterical shite addresses the application of your views to real life.
            Try again.

          • Bayne MacGregor

            Richard, dismissing logical ways to separate untruth from truth? Are you so determined to show yourself incompetent at judgement?

            We validly discuss application in legislation AFTER determining the right exists, do you then admit that it DOES exist so we may?

          • Richard de Lacy

            “We validly discuss application in legislation AFTER determining the right exists, ”

            – Nope. Without a clear, realistic, practical benefit to the people from incorporating your views into legislation, there is no reason for anyone to give a monkey’s toss.

          • Bayne MacGregor

            And if the Right does not exist then arguments about how to implement it practically have no point and “there’s no reason for anyone to give a monkey’s toss”.

            If it does exist the best you can do is prove some specific attempt to legislate the Right failed to succeed, it CANNOT show the Right does not exist. Q.E.D.

            Your invalid and unsound attempt at argument is self-refuting.

            So make an ACTUAL argument showing the Right doesn’t exist or CONCEDE that it does exist in principle and we can THEN discuss practical implementation issues.

            Come on Richard, you are failing the very basics of logic and argument. 1st day of 1st week of 1st year university stuff. Some highschool students are lucky enough to do this subject and handle what you are failing. Some little children get the opportunity and can do this. It’s only the simplest of basic fundamental logic. Quite a few people can do this without ever being taught or encountering the concept.

            Time to stop embarrassing yourself and start to catch-up.

          • Richard de Lacy

            Try again. Answer the fucking question. It won’t hurt.

          • Bayne MacGregor

            The existence of the right is the question at hand and you claimed it did not exist first, i asked you how, in what makes a right a right, it was not one, so the burden of proof is on you first. Q.E.D.

            You are the one avoiding the first question. Q.E.D.
            You are the one prevaricating. Q.E.D.
            You are the hypocrite as all your attacks on me apply to you as you are avoiding the question asked of you first. Q.E.D.

            I avoid nothing, i have stated repeatedly i will address application AFTER the existence of the right is determined IF it is determined to exist or IF you can show it does not then there’s no point in doing so. Q.E.D.

            So apply your own arguments to yourself and stop avoiding the FIRST question.

            How is the right, in what makes a right a right, not one?

            Determine the validity of the premise of your own question by answering the one asked you first. Your the one avoiding answering. So all your attacks apply only to you. Quod Erat Demonstrandum.

          • Richard de Lacy

            Too cowardly to answer one, simple question.
            Not good, is it?
            I notice your current PM soiled his pants and rolled over to have his tummy tickled, rather than “shirtfront” Vladimir Vladimirovich, and your previous PM blubbered like a fairy when he lost the election, and the one before that did the 15-minute blubberfest about being “puuuuronally offended,”
            I can see why you think aussies are too weak and feeble to withstand “vilification,” but you need to borrow the courage (maybe ask a Caucasian immigrant to do it for you) to answer the fucking question.

            Got it?

          • Bayne MacGregor

            You were asked a question first, you haven’t answered it, so you call yourself a coward.

            You make all sorts of irrational illogical remarks, my being right or wrong, the rights in question existing or not, has nothing to do with any politicians whatsoever.

            And all your allegations of some particular Australian cowardice simply would give a cultural justification for any alleged cowardice i had and so make your own cowardice So Much Worse for you have no such justification and you are the one dodging for longer, you were asked first.

            I’m not even dodging, just waiting for you to answer first.

            Again you hurt yourself in your attempt to hurt me instead of answering the FIRST question. What a strange form of masochist you are.

            You must love the taste of your own foot, it seems to never leave your mouth cousin! The other one so full of your own bullets it must be more lead than flesh by now.

            You can never legitimately ask or demand that i answer your question when my prior one to you still goes unanswered. It simply brands you a hypocrite, your every attack turns on you like a mistreated dog biting it’s foolish master.

            You are the coward here, by your own argument are you daily defeated. All your goals are own-goals, you have scored not one point against me in our entire conversation but you have soundly trashed and thrashed your own reputation to bloody infected ribbons.

            End your hypocritical cowardice so we can determine the premise and then validly move to the question of implementation you want to talk about.

            Gain some integrity, learn to make a rational argument, and maybe you can get your foot out of your mouth. Then maybe you can make a single relevant point, maybe even one that can stand up to a moments scrutiny.

          • Richard de Lacy

            Wrong. As I said, when you can apply your dreams to reality, we might give a toss.
            Might.
            Possibly.

          • Bayne MacGregor

            No my proven-hypocrite cousin who mistakes facetiousness for reason as if it would save your bacon when buried neck-deep in the ordure of your own lack of argument I Asked You First.
            So you answer first. No excuses.
            Ergo all your attacks for not answering apply (only) to you.
            All your own demands i answer your questions require you first to answer mine.
            You claimed the Right Did Not Exist.
            So the Burden Of Proof of your claim is on you. (i already made an argument of the existence of the right being self-evident so you must now refute that argument or concede it)
            http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophic_burden_of_proof
            The question I asked of you is the subject at hand, the one you asked of me cannot resolve the one i asked of you so i ONLY have to answer it IF the right exists, show it does not and it never needs discussing.

            If the Right is shown to exist it becomes a follow-on discussion, if it does not the question becomes utterly irrelevant. Till the first question is resolved the second is a distraction, a side-topic. A charlatans sleight-of-hand attempt in lieu of a genuine argument.

            What did you call avoiding a question? Oh yes, cowardice. So by your own accusation you are the coward here.

            You have prevaricated a whole month avoiding THE FIRST question while dragging your own reputation through filth daily and betraying your lack of character, lack of integrity and immense capacity for self-defeating argument. Surely you could have read enough in that time to catch up with the very basics of either Logic or Rights Philosophy or both.

            Here let me help you. Here’s an introduction to logic lecture series https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=55oNbTMY3yc&list=UUSywBvTDTaQni3Vq1L4us_w and here is Logic For Dummies in print http://www.dummies.com/store/product/Logic-For-Dummies.productCd-0471799416.html

            Do try and make a valid argument tomorrow even if you cannot make a sound one.

          • Richard de Lacy

            I claimed the right did not exist because the pathetic souls who believe it DOES exist are totally unable to apply it to reality.
            You shouldn’t have pretended you would answer a question when you had no idea how to even begin. Your refusal to do so merely shows you are Australian PM material.

            Of course, even you would have grasped by now that if you HAD answered the question, you would have dug yourself out of a considerable hole, but I confidently predict that you never will.

            Good luck
            I wouldn’t move abroad, by the way. Your sort do not fare very well (although it’s very entertaining when they try)

          • Bayne MacGregor

            That’s illogical though.

            You cannot show a right does not exist because it has not yet been successfully (or earnestly in some cases) applied.

            Otherwise the time it took the Anglosphere to end slavery would have constituted the same evidence of lack of capacity to apply the right of personal freedom and so enabled an argument against that rights existence.

            And yet eventually they started to get the application of that right working. But if your argument against rights had been made and believed at that time, then they would have stopped trying before succeeding. Thus your claim is shown to be invalid from the start. That something has not yet been done does not mean it cannot be done. For more examples see the Wright brothers flight or for that matter most of human progress.

            Nor have you shown that the right has not ever been properly applied as you claimed, so when you concede that the right exists in principle and the argument is over and the second follow-on argument begins it will start with you having a burden-of-proof obligation on this other claim which cannot resolve the question of whether the right exists to start with.

            Hence why you were asked IN WHAT MAKES A RIGHT A RIGHT AND THAT WHICH ARE NOT RIGHTS NOT RIGHTS. So you did not answer the question.

            You are going to have to contend with the philosophy from which the arguments of Rights emerged, and you aren’t going to manage that making such amateurish pseudo-arguments.

            Read the book on Bad Arguments i linked you, it’s free, only about 50 pages long and half of that are cute animal pictures that illustrate each Classical Logical Fallacy. Not long to read at all and not hard to read either. It will vastly help your cognition, reduce your gullibility and enable you to at least stop embarrassing yourself in our conversation.

            Because more ad hominem ‘your sort’ nonsense? Again another attempt to goad an emotional response and deceive people into dismissing a position based on who makes it. Wherever did you learn such foolish self-destructive bad argument habits? You just can’t seem to help yourself.

            Is it bolstering a brittle fragile ego trying to puff yourself up to look and feel more impressive than your arguments are? Have you got through life manipulating the gullible and incompetent into believing you were right when anyone with an ounce of logic or critical thinking whether innate or learned would see that your arguments do not show what you say they do? Or have you been genuinely taught somewhere by someone profoundly incompetent that these arguments known false since antiquity and shown so with basic logic constituted actual points?

            You are of course trying the ‘spin’ of politics, so i’m afraid you are the one using the toolkit of that sadly debased degraded and honour-sullied profession.

            Come on Richard, you can raise the standard and quality of your arguments to the level of competency. Just keep trying, you can do it.

          • Richard de Lacy

            I only gist-read your emotional slop to check to see whether you have attempted to answer the question in which I asked you to apply your theory to reality.

            You cannot do so, so feel free to post more latte-guzzlers’ crap.

          • Bayne MacGregor

            But you didn’t answer the FIRST question. You first Richard.

            Emotional?
            https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G2y8Sx4B2Sk

            I’d go check a dictionary as you don’t understand what emotional means (hint, you display more of it than me lol).

            Nor even if you were right would it make me wrong, a person can be emotional AND have a logically valid and sound argument. And certainly something isn’t ’emotional slop’ if it just makes you upset and hurt to read how i logically show you attack yourself instead of me.

          • Bayne MacGregor

            If you go away silently, slinking away as a coward you concede defeat in the worst possible way. Without honour, without integrity. Admitting any mistakes, admitting an inability to make a valid logical argument for your position, those are honourable and show integrity.

            I win either way, but for your sake learn integrity rather than the false façade of dishonourable pretence.

            You have had a month to rise up to the challenge of logic and reason and you failed so far, but you can read so you can learn, so you can clean your breeches and rise up from the gutter and claim your birthright as a sentient being of clear and deep thought.

            You were given links and books to read, hints and clues and downright instruction yet you didn’t even catch my mistakes when i got lazy. The book of bad arguments is only 50 pages long, and half that is illustrations, you should have read it by now. And i know bad habits of emotional argument via logical fallacy are hard to break but you can do it.

            Let’s see some integrity. Let’s see some honour. Or did the de Lacey legacy only carry in the branch of the bloodline that didn’t keep the surname cousin?

          • Richard de Lacy

            STILL too gutless to answer the question?
            Bayne, I’m the only one reading your emotional slop, and that is on the slim-to-fuck-all chance that you’ll answer the direct question.

            It does not matter how many times you paraphrase your snivelling; it is still an admission that you CANNOT apply your fluffy-bunny Aussie crap to reality, which is why you can never address the question.

            Blubber away. son.

          • Bayne MacGregor

            How, in what makes a right a right, and what is not a right not a right, is this not a right? THAT cousin is the question you have been avoiding with your application question. You haven’t answered it. So answer it.

            I asked YOU a question FIRST so you just called YOURSELF gutless my ever self-refuting self-accusing self-defeating cousin.

            And i never refused to answer your question, just insisted you give me a valid and sound answer to the First Question before i attempt to, so that means You and Only You are the coward, accused convicted and sentenced by your own argument.

            Several Friends and Family read this every day Richard, it provides merriment and discussion and it sits here on the internet under our real names in public where our character and integrity or lack thereof is revealed (and neither of us have common names Richard, but this argument won’t be harming my reputation while you seem intent on destroying yours) and it is still YOU who keeps refusing to answer the FIRST direct question. Your question is and always has been a way to try and dodge the one put to you and that won’t ever succeed. How many times will you punch yourself in the face with one hand and in your groin with the other with ad hominems that can only prove you are a hypocrite before You answer the First question?

            You are also the one using emotive language, and your using your irrelevant question to ineffectually try and DODGE the question put to you FIRST which is the snivelling here cousin. Your weasel argument won’t get you out of the snare you put yourself in.

            Proper Application discussion goes AFTER we establish the right exists, (can you even tie your own shoelaces when you cannot handle such a simple irrefutable logical point?) and doesn’t matter if it does not. which is why YOUR question can never address the Question you must answer FIRST.

            You answer FIRST Richard and then, only then, will i even think about what answer might be validly given to your question.. and even that will be only if your answer actually makes your question relevant which means you’ll have to CONCEDE the FIRST topic.

            So when you finally stop your nonsense filibuster of lilly-livered pants-wetting cowardice and stop calling yourself names by arguing refusing to answer is cowardice when YOU are refusing to answer FIRST which makes YOU the coward, and you actually answer the First Question Then and only then might you get an answer because i am owed a valid and sound answer first.

            Your bluster and hand waving merely shows how fragile your ego is and how incompetent you are. Your attempt to change the subject will never get you off the hook. And every post that attacks only attacks yourself.

            We are well into the second month of you running around in a circle trying desperately to repeat the same mantra hoping it will make me forget the first question, that you must answer First. i have no idea what kind of imbeciles you must be used to dealing with to think that could ever work but it won’t. You have proven in a public forum that you are a hypocrite. You have called yourself a coward by your own argument. You have showed lack of integrity. You have shown incompetence. You show yourself to be “a lilly-livered, milk and water, backboneless jellyfish” to quote a family member.

            And to think you tried that Argument From Authority Fallacy early on, lol, i think you might need to demand your money back for your qualifications because i am entirely without your formal qualifications and have had you in check this entire time and the one single move that could get you out of Check is the very one you refuse to make which put you in it in the first place.

            Which of course means it’s check-mate unless you make that move. So stop your pathetic puerile pusillanimous prevarication and You Answer The First Question First.

          • Richard de Lacy

            “How, in what makes a right a right, and what is not a right not a right, is this not a right?2

            – Your proven inability to apply your fantasy (of the “right” to be free from belittling comment) to reality. As you only care about the majority (affluent, pampered Australians), you have given no thought to how this right could possibly be enshrined in Law and provide equal “protection” to all inhabitants of the nation, so your fantasy is not compatible with Equality Before the Law.

            That’s why I know you’ll never answer it.

            And you’re going to prove me right with more of your endless, latte-guzzling snivelling.

            Thanks in advance.

          • Bayne MacGregor

            Answer the question.

            You can’t claim proven when i haven’t even bothered to try to answer your spurious question yet cause application comes after. Actually answer the question.

            You are using a Straw Man Argument claiming i only care about the affluent, (as if Aboriginal people are all affluent) do try an honest argument Richard. But first Answer The Question.

            You haven’t answered the question. I showed arguments of specific attempts at application cannot refute the existence of the right a month ago. So try actually answering the question.

            As for sniveling, your the one doing that (amusingly your line about sniveling IS sniveling!), and if latte drinking somehow is relevant you might need to start drinking it because so far you still can’t manage a real argument.

          • Richard de Lacy

            That’s yet more snivelling, coupled with a refusal to answer the fucking question.

            It is not a straw man argument, but an accurate prediction – youy don’t answer the question, because you can’t answer it, and you are too cowardly to admit it, hence your incessant snivelling.

            Here you are again, so ploease highlight the parts which are too difficult for your brain:

            “How, in what makes a right a right, and what is not a right not a right, is this not a right?”

            – Your proven inability to apply your fantasy (of the “right” to be free from belittling comment) to reality. As you only care about the majority (affluent, pampered Australians), you have given no thought to how this right could possibly be enshrined in Law and provide equal “protection” to all inhabitants of the nation, so your fantasy is not compatible with Equality Before the Law.

            That’s why I know you’ll never answer it.

          • Bayne MacGregor

            No my self-accusing cousin, you are the one refusing to answer the real question, i am the one deferring yours till you do, because mine determines the relevance of yours Q.E.D.

            You are making a Straw Man Argument, because you are mischarecterising my argument and position and then trying to attack that instead of my actual one. Do try and reach basic competence in basic argument please.

            I said you cannot show the right does not exist by attacking instances of application of the right before i even asked the question. So no, you have not answered the question just repeated what i’d already refuted before i’d even asked it.

            You had the whole idea of Self Evident wrong, so i’m not surprised you are struggling with Rights Philosophy and basic logic. Its like your basic toolkit is missing half it’s tools and the ones you have aren’t the ones you need and no-one told you how to use them anyway. But unless you have a cognitive disability or learning disability you can catch up. There are plenty of books articles and youtube videos so you can learn how to make reasoned logical arguments. Would you like some more links to help?

          • Richard de Lacy

            “i am the one deferring yours till you do,”
            Shouldn’t resort to silly lies.
            I accused you outright of lying, in that you are incapable of answering the question, so prove me wrong.

            Oh, sorry, you can’t.

            Silly boy.

          • Bayne MacGregor

            LOL for someone who has hurt themselves with lies (cause that’s what classical logical fallacies are, liars arguments, the tools of con-artists) so much in our conversation that’s hilarious. You already know all you need to do to call me out on your question is to concede the first question. And until you do i never, ever have to answer it. So you can never validly call me a liar till you do.

            All you have to do is to lose the first argument. Cause if you won it i still wouldn’t have to ever, ever answer your question either.

            As always your own argument attacks you more. So i then posit conversely that you are a liar. That you cannot actually validly answer the First Question and that your question and your accusation of lying are simply a pitiful attempt to dodge and deflect and weasel and worm out of answering it.

            As the First Question is after all First you can then show you are not a liar by answering it First.

            As i said, in check for over a month and the only way out is the one you refuse to take, making it checkmate.

          • Richard de Lacy

            He’s started a post with “LOL”
            Genius.

            You won’t apply your beliefs to real life, but you do give an insight into the mentality of the @I’llRideWithYou clowns.

            You havethe worst prejudice of all, Bayne, and while that is your business, of course, you still have to expect bouts of derision.

          • Bayne MacGregor

            Yes Richard, i said “LOL”, do please note that “LOL” is in the Oxford Dictionary http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/LOL

            And Ad Hominems again. Logical Fallacies are non-arguments, false arguments, liars arguments the tools of conmen. https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/ad-hominem

            What prejudice?
            You seem (extraordinarily) confused, if you think that agreeing that no person should face arbitrary discrimination based on a trait that all people have one of the many variations of somehow means supporting an inequality then you may have a severe problem with telling left from right or up from down.

            I’ll likely never know if i am right or wrong because you can’t come up with a legitimate argument that tests my view, unless you learn, grow, change and start doing so.

            Till then i’ll just be left winning the debate by default each day as you flagellate yourself with this inept self-harm instead of answering the question.

          • Richard de Lacy

            Since you refuse to answer a simple question, repeated above, you are at least as cowardly as the “daffodils” of Singapore.

            Keep on bottling it, sonny.

          • Bayne MacGregor

            You aren’t answering the FIRST question, making you the coward.

            All your attacks always apply to you.
            You are quite the masochist sitting there playing the fool.
            Sometimes i wonder if you are trying to make me look good by being intentionally bad at this.

          • Richard de Lacy

            I repeat:

            “How, in what makes a right a right, and what is not a right not a right, is this not a right?2

            – Your proven inability to apply your fantasy (of the “right” to be free from belittling comment) to reality. As you only care about the majority (affluent, pampered Australians), you have given no thought to how this right could possibly be enshrined in Law and provide equal “protection” to all inhabitants of the nation, so your fantasy is not compatible with Equality Before the Law.

            That’s why I know you’ll never answer it.

            Keep blubbering.

          • Bayne MacGregor

            LOL!
            Come on Richard i asked the question with the specific wording “in what makes a right a right, and what is not a right not a right,” AFTER i pointed out, over a MONTH ago, that you CANNOT show the right does not exist using criticism of attempts to enact it, that can only criticise the specific attempt and cannot show the RIGHT doesn’t exist.

            So try ACTUALLY answering the question. Not repeating the nonsense that the question was asked AFTER the refuting of.

            Lets start you onto the path of legitimate argument, of competence. Lets get some real capacity in the void you cover up with bluster and filibuster and pomposity.

          • Richard de Lacy

            As you are incapable of applying your view of rights to real life, I have no interest in your view.
            I have no interest in the views of anyone who cannot apply their views to real life – such fantasies are for latte-guzzling saddos.

            Could you not find a friend who can apply your views to reality?

          • Bayne MacGregor

            But you are under the Burden of Proof here Richard, you claimed the Right didn’t exist so i called you on that and asked the question you endlessly try and escape.

            And you keep hurting yourself in every post in your attempts.

            What you are or are not interested in is irrelevant, because your integrity honesty judgement and reputation is on the line and you’ve failed yourself for over a month.

            And all your attacks and criticisms apply solely or moreso to you this entire time.

            We can discuss application AFTER. I’m happy to. I’m looking forward to. But you placed yourself in this corner Richard, trapped yourself by your own foolishness, and we can’t get to the stuff we both would like to talk about till you concede (as proving your claim would render discussing application pointless).

            You can never save your bacon this way Richard, you just harm yourself further every day. You painted yourself into this corner, you put yourself on this barbed hook.

            I get it, really i do, at some point you learned to avoid accurate criticism in the past by just stating a falsehood until someone relented or got distracted, or you goaded them into it. Somehow you thought that was a victory, not realising how you betrayed yourself. weakened yourself, set yourself up for this failure.

            Rather than learning to grow stronger by recognising when you were wrong and changing, and so being more often right, you cover it up in lies and bluster and distraction making yourself ever weaker, ever more fragile, ever more vulnerable.

            You are daily hoist by your own petard. And all you have had to do is to heed your own refrain, and answer the question.

          • Richard de Lacy

            If you think the right exists, don’t tell silly lies. Explain why you cannot apply the right to real life. but still believe it exists.

          • Bayne MacGregor

            And again you call yourself a liar.
            For i asked you first.
            So all your attacks about lying and not answering attack yourself instead of me.

            Your own arguments call you a liar, call you a coward and say you cannot answer the question.

            You claimed the right didn’t exist and i called you to back that up and you just keep trying to weasel out of the Burden Of Proof being on you till you do. Not only can’t you shift that Burden Of Proof onto me, that you attempt to is yet another way you harm yourself by acting without integrity.

          • Richard de Lacy

            Do you want me to cut and paste it all over again, before you refuse to answer?

          • Bayne MacGregor

            I asked first, you still haven’t actually answered the actual question i put to you. You are the one refusing. And prove yourself still a hypocrite.

            You have nothing relevant to cut and paste. Your question will wait till mine is fully and completely utterly resolved, so will be on hold for eternity till you end your hipocrisy and First answer the First Question.

            I pointed out long before i even asked the question that you cannot dispute the existence of a right by attacking failures of applying it so you need a new argument as that one was dead before the question was asked. That’s why i asked the question in fact.

            We are replaying daily your losing move. You won’t actually gain ground through repetition, failing the same way each day, for i repeat my winning move each day. You’ll need to try something else.

            Prove your question irrelevant by actually showing the right doesn’t exist in what makes a right a right (and thus prove i was right in my point about your question showing yourself a fool for asking it) or concede the entire argument to have a separate sequel argument about application of the right by admitting the right does exist.

            Either way you end up being wrong, and i take it by your utter failure to make a proper case that an inability to cope with being wrong is what gets you so emotional that you lose. Unable to decide which battle to lose in order to try for victory you instead lose the whole war.

          • Bayne MacGregor

            If you can’t get basic premises right, can’t avoid logical fallacies how will you even get to dealing with Enthymemes?

            You’ll never validly show you have correct conclusions if you fail at every single step of making a logical argument Richard. The information you need is widely available online, a gave you some links and you have google etc. So no excuses Richard.

          • Richard de Lacy

            Once again, Aussie-style emotional drivel – fine over a latte with your beetroot-smothered burger – but you need to answer the simple (even for you) question.
            Off you go, boy…

          • Bayne MacGregor

            How is Classical Greek Logic in any way classifiable as intrinsically Australian and especially Emotional?
            Logic is unemotional.
            Do you often misconstrue left as right, up as down, in as out, first as last? You seem to have a severe cognitive impediment if you are confusing opposites.

            Are you claiming Australia is the only country left on Earth using rational thought and reason? Using Cogent argument? Using Sound and Valid Logic? I have news for you those are taught in universities the whole world round.

            You are the one responding emotionally and irrationally cousin. You are the only one here that your criticism may be applied to.

            You’ve spent so many days avoiding the First question, the preceding question. I don’t have to answer your question till after you have answered the one i asked of you first. And that answer would determine the validity of the premise of your question. Your every demand i answer your question calls yourself a hypocrite.

            You are the one using bursts of descriptive language which prove nothing, trying insults instead of actually reasoned arguments.

            What i do or do not eat has no bearing whatsoever on whether i am right or wrong on the subject at hand, and will not get you off the hook. Answer the First question Richard:

            How, in what makes a right a right and that which is not a right not a right, are the alleged rights in question not rights as you claimed?

            Logic is logic whether i am eating wheatgrass juice or pygmy hippopotamus steak, whether in Tasmania, the Cayman Islands or Uzbekistan.

            Your every emotional, irrational statement and hypocritical attack only harm yourself. Answer the First question cousin Richard.

            And if you cannot manage even a simple sound and valid logical point and you cannot even manage a book that teaches how with cute animal illustrations then you can get a tutor to help you.

            After all, those Schoolchildren whose schools offer Ethics as a subject are managing what you are not cousin Richard, so calling me ‘boy’ when you cannot manage what schoolkids can only insults you more.

            Answer the First Question Richard.
            Insulting yourself with easily refuted projection isn’t working. It’s far too easy especially when you are so foolish as to call Logic emotional when logic is famed for being unemotional.

            Answer the first question cousin Richard. Learn some Logic, learn how to think clearly. Make a valid point for once.

          • Bayne MacGregor

            No blubbering is in there cousin, plenty of Classical Greek Philosophy: the foundation of Western Civilisation is though Am i talking too far over your head? Don’t know what Aristotelian Logic and Non-Aristotelian Logic are? Don’t know the difference between a Sound argument and a Valid one? Likely not, because you evidently don’t know a thing about the subject you are trying to discuss.

            Shall we go step by step through the ignorancess and I shall elucidate?

            At which term do you stumble cousin?

          • Bayne MacGregor

            Oh cousin you do such harm to the shared family name you inherited and i did not. You made the disasterously foolish decision to attack my spelling and then misspell ask as ash and missed the hyphen in semi-literate and wrote semi0literate. By your own petard you are hoisted.

            Would you care to retract that foolish argument as it also applies to yourself making you at best a hypocrite? I mean it’s a classical logical fallacy anyway, the skill at making an argument has not one iota of weight or relevance to the truth of that argument after all.

            You really do need to catch up with basic classical western thinking. A bit of Plato Socrates and Aristotle might save you, and the family reputation.

          • Richard de Lacy

            “You really do need to catch up with basic classical western thinking.” – You’re in 1968, sonny.

          • Bayne MacGregor

            And you are in 470 BC,
            So i’m more than 2000 years ahead of you. Do catch up.

          • Bayne MacGregor

            I should be getting paid for this, i’m tutoring you on basic 1st year university philosophy logic and argument, and your such an atrocious student you have currently no chance of passing any remotely competent or non-corrupt assessment.

          • Richard de Lacy

            Here’s the bit you failed to read – the reason why I called you on your racism: “So, it is “irrelevant” how you would apply the legislation to the racist abuse of minorities; you’re only interested in the delicate little feelings of pampered Aussies. Your racism would be fine if it were accompanied by attempts at debate,..”

            You replied with:
            “Oh and just because there are racists in Australia that does not make me a racist just because i am an Australian.”

            Are you going to call me a “bully” for pointing this out?

          • Bayne MacGregor

            Yes, i dismiss the question because just like the education discussion you cannot prove a right exists or not by arguing the quality of the legislation used to protect that alleged right.

            The legislation may be good even if the right does not exist. The legislation may be bad even if the right does exist.

            Hence the question remains nonsense. And my dismissal of it has nothing to do with racism, especially as IF (capitalisation to make an IF/THEN logical point nice and clear) as i have argued right to protection against Racial Vilification exists THEN i am the one defending the right of racial minorities not to be vilified.

            Now i am not the kind of fool who would suggest that you must be a racist simply because you are disagreeing that such a right exists even though racial vilification is part of the mechanism of racism. However you cannot show that my defending such a right stems from any other motive than from concluding that it exists.

            Even were my conclusion erroneous, which you show yourself utterly incapable of showing anything of the sort, still it would be valid enough motive for my position up until the moment it was demonstrated to be erroneous.

            So once again i explain to you that the only way to win this argument is to show that the RIGHT does not exist.

            Look, i an tell you need some help with this idea. Just because it is simple and easy to grasp for many people that does not mean you are stupid, your cognition may simply be less rational and maybe you are an artist capable of good creative work even if your judgement is currently unsound. So you deserve help.

            I won’t demean you by starting at the lowest point, try this article and see if it snaps you out of nonsensical pseudo-argument. If this is still going over your head i’ll try some simpler explanation and we can keep going till you get it.

            http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Formal_fallacy
            This should help you understand that no matter what criticisms you would be able to point out about any specific legislation intended to legislate against abuse of an alleged right it does not and never will show whether or not the right exists and can only show the quality of the legislation at fulfilling its intent.

            Currently your arguments are filled with illogic, with false reasoning. IF you are at all right in your beliefs THEN with actual arguments you can convince me of your points, till then though you only hurt yourself and leave your position unchampioned let alone unproved.

      • I’m not gonna assume what country you’re from, but where I come from the choice to slander and degrade murder victims is by no means a “fundamental right” and remind me to never visit the country you are from where it is.

  • AnObserver

    Why is it so important to you to vilify the transgender community?
    We face an inordinate amount of violence and abuse. We speak against that abuse because we are facing such dismal futures. Due to abuse we strike out against every single slight we see. Yes we are reactionary and militant. That does not make our cause unjust or untrue. That just means we are sick and tired of the abuse, slander and killings.
    Yes we are trying to control the language and the culture. We want to live in peace and enjoy the same fruits of our civilization as every one else. We are facing astronomical odds to simply live in peace. If that means we descend on the wrong doer and pick them clean like vultures, it is what it is, we will survive and be afforded the rights and privileges of the society we are part of. If that means we have to destroy a few bigots careers and livelihoods to effect long term social change, we will do so.

    • Freddie Cuthbert

      Long term social change? How about free speech? It’s not like you are actually denied rights, and anyway without speech the world will crumble and people like you will be silenced. I suppose you’ll go and report as bigotry, but then who’d be the bigot then?

      • AnObserver

        there is no freedom of speech when it comes to hate, this has already been well established

      • Bayne MacGregor

        You can discuss any subject without a, making false claims and b, being abusive.

        So the free exchange of ideas is not interfered with. And worse as abusive behaviour can cause some people to refrain from discourse in fact abusive speech is itself censorious and an attack on the free exchange of ideas, and thus an attack on free speech!

      • “It’s not like you are actually denied rights”

        I’ll remember to remind the next friend of mine that is fired from their job or denied housing or access to medical care for being trans of this.

  • Lynette Nusbacher

    So you’re expressing your horror that trans people are empowered? Even though you think trans people are deeply screwed up and need something other than medically-recognised facilitation and support?

    And that you can’t get away with saying obnoxious things about trans people?

    I’m good with all of that.

    Deal.

  • “But there’s something more behind the super-shrillness of trans
    activists. It’s that they recognise, at some level, that their identity
    is a phoney, or at least a flimsy, one.”

    Yeah, right. You know this .. how exactly?

    “In essence, transgenderism is a mental difficultly dressed up as a cultural identity.”

    Despite what those who actually know something about the science say. You know better.

    No need to give any evidence, handwaving and assertion’s enough when talking about inferiors, “trannies”, “she-males” “niggers”….

    Meanwhile… the TDOR is coming soon. Trans Day of Remembrance. I doubt if the author has ever heard of it. It’s where we – for no-one else does – remember our slain over the past 12 months. Hundreds of names, shot, or stoned, or disemboweled, or burnt to death. Some of the killers are quite imaginative.

    If we dare mention that – then we’re “playing the victim” according to the author. It’s not enough for us to die and be cut to pieces – as Ms Prasetyo literally was remember, I’m not engaging in hyperbole – if we bleed we’re at fault for messing up the carpet.

    No matter. Let this “article” sink into the obscurity it deserves, though it might be worthwhile trotting it out now and then as an example of supremely ignorant arrogance.

    I’m sure the author feels very brave at taking on this powerful lobby. He’s the victim here you see his freedom of speech being restricted by someone showing that he’s full of it.

  • Bayne MacGregor

    The 1st Transgender correlated gene discovery by Australian scientists was back in 2008. Transgender brain structure ifferences have been found in autopsies decades ago and seen on FMRI scans recently. Strange these biological science facts were omitted from this article. As well as the attempted suicide rate of more than 30% and it’s known correlation with amount of harassment and bullying the Trans person experienced. The extreme rate of being victims of assault (about half in Queensland) and assault with a weapon (over a third in Queensland).

    Maybe a group of people who get harassed, bashed and assaulted with weapons that much might get a bit touchy because they have been actually severely mistreated? Maybe a little basic research is in order? Might i reccomend the following Australian Studies: Speaking Out: Stopping Homophobic and Transphobic Abuse in Queensland. Writing Themselves In 3 (a study on school bullying, the Gender Questioning section of great note) and the most recent From Blues to Rainbows

    • Reality is sweet

      2008, why, think of that! And yet humans have been known to be a sexually dimorphic species since, well, forever. Transgenders love quoting science except when it comes to basic biology. Ovaries? No, THAT doesn’t mean you’re a woman, you transphobe!! That penis? Women have them too!! XX chromosomes? They mean nothing! Anomalies found in the brains of 20 cadavers in 2008? Why, this man is really a woman! Your bullshit works well with uneducated and gullible audiences. Sadly, that’s an awful lot of people nowadays.

      • Bayne MacGregor

        You are joking right?
        Are you trying to argue that Basic Biology trumps ADVANCED Biology?

        That what is taught in University is trumped by what is taught in High School? Are you REALLY trying to make such an embarrassing argument?

        I mean, i could disprove your spurious ‘forever’ claim by pointing out the multitudinous cultures with more than two Genders in their understandings, i could post links to Ancient Greek Sculptures of Intersex people, i could point out the Scythians source of estrogen for their sex-change religious practices or the 3rd gender legends of the Babylonians, yet anyone with a bit of google can learn about two-spirits Fa’Afa’Fine, the Cybelline etc.

        Or to quote a local farmer who tried a run at politics with an ultra-conservative party (but the local independent couldn’t be unseated till he retired), “I’ve seen it in cattle and sheep”.

        I could try to explain XXY chromosome combinations, AIS, the Epigenetic discovery that changed gender-specific behaviour in mice and much more ADVANCED biology to you, but if you think that a shallow simplified generalised understanding of a subject trumps a deep detailed specific understanding, well, catching up with specific discoveries isn’t your biggest problem.

        By the way, the GENETIC discovery by Australian scientists was 2008. I only just told you that so getting it badly wrong in your immediate reply is a cause for concern. Have you seen a doctor lately? Such significant comprehension difficulty might be a sign of serious maladies so it might be worth getting a check-up.

        The first Brain differences found in the brains of deceased transgender people was back in the 90s. 1995 if i recall correctly.

        • Reality is sweet

          The fact that there are birth defects and genetic disorders that affect the human reproductive system is hardly astonishing. These are called “disorders of sexual Idevelopment.” Most people affected are infertile. There are also people born with extra fingers and missing fingers. This doesn’t prove that there is an astonishing diversity in human hands. It proves that something went wrong along the way. Anyway, have I seen a doctor? Why yes, my gynecologist! I dare you to show up in one of their offices and explain that female reproductive systems are irrelevant to someone’s sex and that the real division between sexes is in the brain. I dare you! Anyway, this isn’t for you. This is for the benefit of rational people. Good day, sir!

          • Bayne MacGregor

            Except that we are discussing a group of people between 4% and possibly significantly over 8% of the population that’s not a genetic disorder, it’s way too widespread.

            To be so prevalent it would need to be Directly Advantageous or Associated with a Direct Advantage. So either a Survival, Prosperity or Attractiveness trait caused this to be selected enough to be extremely widespread or it’s a side-effect of another genetic advantage and insufficient a burden to prevent that genetic advantage becoming widespread.

            Either way being present throughout every branch of humanity, with so far at least 3 different genes found to be connected to it, without being weeded out by natural selection?

            This isn’t some new trait only found amongst a small portion of the worlds genetic lines like Adult Milk Digestion is, so it must have evolved early and yet not been weeded out by thousands of years of mutation and natural selection, nor become the primary trait either, so it’s a trait that works best as a significant stable minority of the population (like homosexuality is hypothesized to be). That’s not a disorder then. it’s a natural evolved trait.

            Oh, and the Epigenetic model of possible biological causation of Homosexuality, borrowing as it does from discoveries about Transgender, along with the cross-sex neurology discoveries about Gay and Lesbian brains suggest that Homosexuality is simply a form of Transgender Phenomena.

          • I like that this person thinks that trans folks never go to gynecologists.

            Lol, keep thinking that.

          • Bayne MacGregor

            Very good point.

  • SkyLark Phillips

    “But even in this time of ostentatious offence-taking, transgender activists stand out.”
    It’s not ostentatious offence-taking so much as the deliberate silencing of women’s voices, and any critical debate on how gender/”gender identity” and transgender effects women.

    If anything, it’s far worse than what O’Neill describes in this article. The level of harassment and intolerance of any debate on how “gender identity”/transgender impacts women is silenced through bullying and intimidation tactics that are reminiscent of the long gone era of witch hunts. This is not an exaggeration, and I’m sure there are a lot of people who know this to be true. Women, and even some men, who are branded “TERFs”, or “TERF” affiliated some how, are hounded without mercy. Feminists, and even some men who just happen to be affiliated some how with “TERFs” (any woman who transgender activists dislike) are shouted down to shut them up. Women don’t have to be radical feminists, or even identify as feminists to be branded a “TERF”. Online death threats against “TERFs” are too numerous to count, and extremely disturbing. Keep in mind that these are males making online death threats against women. Click on the link about Michigan Women’s Music Festival below.

    It’s gotten so bad that transgender activists in the U.S. have resorted to telling women what they can and cannot do on their privately owned land. They know they can’t legally tell women what they can and cannot do on their own property, but this doesn’t stop them from harassing women. The attack against Michigan Women’s Music by transgender activists should frighten all women. Women can’t have one week a year on their own land without trans activists pitching a huge hissy fit.

    http://hipocriteequalitymichigan.wordpress.com/

    Julie Burchill and Julie Bindel have both been on the receiving end of harassment by transgender activists.

    Lierre Keith, a feminist from the U.S. and members of Deep Green Resistance, an environmental group were cornered and harassed by transgender activists/queer identified persons. Below is an excellent article from a left-leaning magazine,

    http://www.counterpunch.org/2013/06/21/55123/

    Trans activists even went after Derrick Jensen, an environmentalist who never said one thing about transgender persons. They did this because he just happens to know Lierre Keith. Knowing a “TERF” gets people harassed too because it’s guilty by association similar to McCarthy type tactics. Trans activists were able to convince one bookstore from selling books from the author Robert Jensen (no relation to Derrick that I’m aware of) because he wrote one article that they didn’t like. Robert Jensen is an anti-war activists, left-leaning author.

    • Bayne MacGregor

      While certainly some Transgender activists have acted unethically, some have also been the recipient of unethical behaviour. All unethical tactics bullying and harassment needs to be decried by people of integrity on all sides.
      Death-threats, Doxing, Ad Hominems are all without justification from all sides, and they have occurred on both sides for generations.

      We know that there is an extremely high attempted suicide rate amongst Transgender people particularly the many who are recipients of physical violence and of bullying. It would not surprise me if some of the victims of unethical Transgender activists are likewise effected just as we know that this is true with many Transgender people who have been recipients of unethical tactics from anti-transgender activists.

      And of course when people reciprocate in kind this escalates. Hurt people hurt people, and the more that hurt people hurt hurt people the worse the back and forth gets.

      Those strong enough on all sides to act calmly and compassionately need to do so, both in reaching out to those who disagree with them and also in trying to heal the hurt people on their own side lashing out.

      Otherwise the pain and bullying domino effect will keep cascading into the future.

  • SkyLark Phillips

    @Bayne MacGregor

    First of all, the humans species is sexually dimorphic and all primates reproduce sexually. Humans are nothing more than primates, and all primates are 90% genetically similar. This is our heritage, and this is who we are as a species. Second, disorders of sexual development (intersex) are not the same as transgender, and every major intersex organization makes a distinction between intersex and transgender. Infertility is common in most intersex medical conditions. Physically, before they “transition”, the vast majority of transgender identified persons are no different than other people. Indeed, many MTFs and FTMs have biological children, and some even give birth or father children after they “transition”.

    As to the following statement, I didn’t know that there were “Gay and Lesbian brains”. Human sexuality is very complex, and same sex sexual behavior has been observed in many primate species and most mammals. For example, Bonobos are basically bisexual. What primates and mammals can’t do is change their sex.

    “Oh, and the Epigenetic model of possible biological causation of Homosexuality, borrowing as it does from discoveries about Transgender, along with the cross-sex neurology discoveries about Gay and Lesbian brains suggest that Homosexuality is simply a form of Transgender Phenomena.”

    What exactly is the “Transgender Phenomena” because the word phenomena implies cultural influences not hard science.

    The idea that “Homosexuality is simply a form of Transgender Phenomena” is taken to extremes in places like Iran where gay men and lesbians are coerced into sex reassignment surgery. These aren’t gay men and lesbians who say they are transgender. The government of Iran will even pay for sex reassignment surgery, yet it executes homosexuals. They are pushed down the path of “transitioning”, castrated, etc.

    Bayne has it backwards. Instead of saying, “Homosexuality is simply a form of Transgender Phenomena”, the truth is transgender could be a form of homosexuality. I say could because we don’t know and neither does Bayne. By transgender, I mean gender non-conformity, however we choose to define it. Research that goes back decades show that childhood gender non-conformity is a fairly good predictor of adult homosexuality. The only difference between butch lesbians and transgender is often one of definition, or how people identify, and the same goes for gay men who are a tad on the effeminate side.

    Bayne doesn’t even have a precise definition of transgender. People who stepped outside the box of traditional masculinity and femininity have always existed. They went by many names. I prefer to see it as human variability, and I am reluctant to use the phrase “Gay and Lesbian brains”, or “trans brains”.

    “Most children with gender dysphoria will not remain gender dysphoric after puberty. Children with persistent GID are characterized by more extreme gender dysphoria in childhood than children with desisting gender dysphoria. With regard to sexual orientation, the most likely outcome of childhood GID is homosexuality or bisexuality.”

    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18981931

    • Bayne MacGregor

      Sorry i didn’t see your comment before, it didn’t come up in nmotifications as it wasn’t a direct reply.

      Firstly that our species is sexually dimorphic in design that doesn’t prevent a high frequency of exceptions. Kin Selection is a powerful evolutionary force for example and it has been offered as an explanation for the high frequency of Homosexuality and Transgender.

      Intersex is different to Transgender true, by current definition of Intersex (counting all forms of physical sexual dimorphism except those in the brain) some Transgender people are Intersex (people still discover that on the GRS surgery table just like back in 1931) but many are not.

      By all means look up the studies on cross-sex-neurology in many Gay and Lesbian brains, there was a nice pop-sci article in New Scientist some years back if you’d rather go with that http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn14146-gay-brains-structured-like-those-of-the-opposite-sex.html

      Yes Iran is bad, but that doesn’t refute me. Most Transgender people don’t get the surgery Iran is forcing on people either, while some medical alteration is reasonably common the full GRS is only a tiny fraction (Lynn Conway’s estimation is 1 in 500 people whereas estimates of the rest of Trandsgender often go well above 4% of the population!).

      My line about Homosexuality being a form of Transgender was largely in the context of the Epigenetic Model. And so perhaps dependent upon that hypothesis being shown by later data. If both Homosexuality, Transgendender and SOME (important word there!) forms of Intersex are caused by an epigenetic switch involving the hormone washes of development than the timing of the hormonal irregularity could determine all of those differences if the same thing occurs at different stages of development. As cross-sex development of different stages of neurological development or other dimorphic body development in the later wash stages would be involved then they would all be forms of variant sex development.

      That there are genetic links and a possible kin-selection pressure in favour those would not be disorders though but selected-for biological traits.

      Yes terminology is imprecise, if you have terms you prefer more that’s fair enough, what matters is we have studies that show wide diversity with a biological basis.

  • SkyLark Phillips

    Besides the ethical issues of gay and lesbian eugenics in countries like Iran, and the pesky subject of biologically intact males in women’s restrooms, locker rooms, etc., there are other profound issues surrounding “transitioning”/gender identity. For example, the sterilization of children is often viewed as a human rights abuse. Children are being slapped with a label of “gender dysphoria”, transgender, etc. at a very young age, sometimes as young as 5 or 6 years of age. Rational people can’t even question the logic behind this practice, or state it could be harming children in the long run. If people call a 5 year old male child “she” long enough, he is going to be very confused when he starts puberty. The same goes for girls. How do people explain menstruation to a “transgender” 12 year old female child? They are just setting the kids up for puberty suppression. Many of these children are given GnRH agonists (puberty suppression) to halt their normal adolescent sexual development. A normal part of human development is halted in physically healthy children based on a psychological diagnosis/culturally defined term. Infertility is an issue with the GnRH agonists, especially if they are followed by cross gender hormones at age 16. We are talking about sterilizing children. I hope people are right about what they are doing.
    The prefrontal cortex of the human brain isn’t fully developed until the early to mid-twenties. This has been called the judgment center of the brain. These kids are sterilized before they are old enough to take out bank loans or buy tobacco.

    • Weston James

      Basic child development lesson: children’s gender identities begin to form as early as two and become concrete by age six or seven. The same goes for EVERY child, gender non-conforming children included.

      For example, the youngest trans child to be labeled gender dysphoric was two and is now 14. She still identifies as a girl–nothing has changed. Her parents allowed her to transition, and it made her happier in the long run. Changing hair, clothes, pronouns, and names is not radical. It is easily reversible and life-saving.

  • SkyLark Phillips

    “I could try to explain XXY chromosome combinations, AIS”
    Please stop shamelessly co-opting intersex persons. They always drag up disorders of sexual development (intersex) when they know that disorders of sexual development are not the same as transgender. They do this time and time again, and it really needs to stop.

    • Weston James

      Is that why Dr. Milton Diamond has said transsexuality is essentially a form of intersex?

      I mean, intersex deals with sexual dimorphism; trans individuals have sexually dimorphic brains. There you have it!

  • jnail7

    Let me see if I understand where the author of this piece is
    coming from:

    Boycotts and petitions are undesirable bully tactics? What should the preferable response be to
    addressing a perceived injustice?
    Seriously, whether they are in the right or in the wrong, what action
    should a group take to address grievances? I can image that there are far worse options
    out there than simple economic non-participation and non-binding statements
    with signatures.

    Next, why should it be acceptable to give purposeful offense
    against another? It is completely possible
    to disagree on an issue and remain respectful to our fellow human beings. A person may have the free speech right to
    give offense to another, but they do not have the right to insist that the
    other not be offended. Nor is there a
    right to limit the offended from acting legally to seek remedy for the
    offense. It is a positive sign for a
    society if its members individually impose sanctions on a purposeful offender
    for behavior that is intended to be hurtful to another member of that
    society. That is the real bullying;
    efforts to purposefully cause offense at the expense of another.

    I accept that there is little I can say to get you to
    reassess your worldview, just as it would be equally unlikely that I could
    change a transperson’s worldview. But,
    for the record, there is no indication in this article that any attempt has
    been made to understand your target from their perspective. Instead, this article is full of projections
    onto this group that originate from yourself to support your own opinion. I am willing to bet that you would dismiss
    any such transgender whose existence contradicts your projections. As a test, find a person who is trans and ask
    them to let you try and describe their experience and would they let you know
    if you got it right or not. If not, try
    again. If you can’t describe their
    experience to the point where they respond in
    some manner of “That’s it exactly!”, then you do not actually comprehend
    this concept and have no business claiming any comprehension.

  • Kevin_OKeeffe

    I resent being expected to be constantly aware of trannies. I can count the number of times I have been in the sublime presence of a transsexual on probably one hand…maybe two. And that was in the San Francisco Bay Area. If I live the rest of my life here in the American rural hinterlands of South Dakota (as I intend), I will probably never see another tranny in the next 30 years. Why do we have to be so worried about a sexually eccentric subset of the population that constitutes 0.05 percent of the total, if that?

    • Sorry to break it to ya, but according to Gallup, South Dakota is in the top ten states for LGBT population, and their population of transgender folks alone could be as much as 10-20x your estimate.

      Just so happens North Dakota is at the bottom of the list, by the way. Happy moving, bro.

    • Weston James

      The world doesn’t revolve around you. None of us require your “awareness.” We are perfectly fine without your two cents. Bye.

      • Kevin_OKeeffe

        So, you intend to arrange for the mass media to cease being flooded with pro-tranny propaganda, then? Excellent! How ever can I thank you enough for performing this outstanding service for Western civilization?!?

        • Weston James

          I rarely see these stories in the media or on the internet Know why? I don’t actively look for them. I don’t listen to the radio or watch television. Problem solved! I don’t sympathize with your self-pity party. Don’t like it? Ignore it…unless you’re the type who simply loves to stand atop the soapbox, ranting and raving for attention.

        • Weston James

          I’m not sympathizing with your self-pity party. I don’t see many trans-related issues in the media because I don’t actively seek out that material. No TV, no radio, no newspaper, no magazine, and you can easily avoid these articles on the internet by not clicking and reading them. In essence, grow a pair and ignore it if you abhor coverage so much.

        • Bayne MacGregor

          Well if we reach demographic parity, and let’s use the low-end estimate of just 4% of the population.. 4% of the movie stars, 4% of the movies, 4% of the tv shows, 4% of the characters on tv….

          As for Western Civilisation well pluralism, equality.. the enlightenment values of Western Civilisation would all allow this to occur. And as cultures that included pro-transgender cultural views lasted for tens of thousands of years it seems unlikely that Western Civilisation would be at all harmed by it.

    • Bayne MacGregor

      4% maybe 8% or more of the population actually (did you get your stats from the genital surgery figure? Because that’s actually a very slim minority) guess you just have a lot of closeted and passing ones around you and you never realised.

      You would likely have grown up with several at school, probably work with several, will pass countless ones shopping every day.

      And the figure could be even higher, the Principal of the Thai school that put in a separate Transgender bathroom said 10%-20% of the students each year identified as Transgender and so that might give us a closer approximation of the actual figures when there is less pressure to keep them closeted. It puts them at the same sort of population level as many studies find people have same-sex attraction. And it would mean you are around Transgender people all the time.

  • stevesailer

    Here’s a fine 2007 New York Times article about the vicious campaign than some trans individuals waged against a leading academic expert on their condition for spilling the beans that they weren’t really “women trapped in men’s bodies,” but were instead people obsessed by a certain sexual fetish:

    http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/21/health/psychology/21gender.html?pagewanted=all

    • Bayne MacGregor

      Except of course his study was catastrophically methodologically flawed and worse ignored that neurological evidence even 10 years before his study already had already proved him wrong!
      Brain structure differences showing cross-sex neuroanatomy was around in 1995 http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v378/n6552/abs/378068a0.html 12 years before he tried to claim it was psychological. Ooops! So much for ‘leading expert’ when he was already 12 years behind and demonstrably wrong the whole time!
      The first genetic correlation was found 1 year after his broken and incorrect study in 2008.
      http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/7689007.stm

      And 3 years after that these cross-sex brain differences could be seen in living brains in FMRI scans
      http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn20032-transsexual-differences-caught-on-brain-scan.html

      So actually he was wrong all along. His study was worthless and rubbish even before it was published.

      I know i know it’s hard for psychologists to deal with Neurology coming along and applying higher scientific capacity (and practices) like measurement to their crude artform. But he had no excuse not to know the Neurological facts before he tried his woeful attempt at a study.

  • Medusa Jordan

    Did you manage to get every single common slur against transwomen (as you appear to have ignored transmen completely) into that article? Because you certainly appear to have tried. Your point appears to be that transawareness is political correctness gone mad, and that transwomen are nothing but shrill complainers. Shrill in this context of course ONLY used as an insult to women – so you have accepted them as women when you want to insult them.

    In my experience transwomen are neither shrill nor self loathing. I have met many transwomen, and they are as varied in their personalities and gender politics as anyone.

  • Sarah A

    Is there a problem with the trans community being over sensitive? Yes, too right there is. But given their struggle against prejudice and discrimination it is understandable.

    You have the privilege for writing for the Spectator, but choose to weigh in on the matter by writing a deliberately offensive article in the hope of getting a reaction. And none of your comments are even original.

    The term “she-male” is considered offensive because it has associated with porn. And any national newspaper should have a style guide warning against using the term. If I referred to your mother as a MILF (another porn term), then I suspect you may take offence.

    You describe transgenderism as “a desire for physical mutilation to try to fix a profound personal identity crisis.” Consensus view of the medical community is in the WPATH standards of care. Why do you think think people who has spent their lives studying this issue are wrong and you are correct?

    Finally by “physical mutilation” you are presumably referring to GRS. GRS is highly skilled reconstructive surgery. You would not refer to someone who has plastic surgery following a car crash as wishing to mutilate their bodies, but having a pop at the “trannies” is fine.

  • Richard de Lacy

    To anyone whose time has been wasted by the “Human Rights activist” Bayne MacGregor on here, I’ll repost here the only bit of his “wisdom” worth reading:

    “You clearly didn’t spend enough time in Australia to learn that the term W.O.G. is a British Acronym for Worthy Oriental Gentleman, part of the British Racist classification…”

    – While we all make mistakes, this one is inexcusable. No-one, and I mean absolutely NO-ONE with any interest in the Englsih language and how it has been used regarding people from other cultures and nations would EVER be so crass, so deliberately ignorant, and so imbecilic as to repeat as fact the entirely baseless claim that “wog” was an accronym – it is a backronym, a FALSE etymology.

    A simple Google search on “wog etymology” is all that’s needed to demolish that idiotic myth, but this is beyond the Australian “Human Rights” community.

    I’ve taken a screenshot, in case the little BS merchant deletes it, but the point is – these idiots want to tell OTHERS what to say or not say?

  • stephengreen

    Something else you could have mentioned is the way that trannies, jump up on their low ponies, like superannuated Bronies and ride towards the sound of any criticism en masse (pour example, see below).

  • stephengreen
  • Jayview moogan

    Oooh yeah! Bitchy on all sides. i love the fire in the belly. The Spectator took on a minority that even those within step to one side and a very long side step to. As a Transgender in a sence of changing myself in a holistic way by retraining my brain to alter my looks and over a few years of hard work I now strut with my male partner the walk of life and living. i did not pin a pair of large boobs and remove “IT” then proclaim I am woman as that is not entirely possible for any male to do so and i shall always be proud to be a bloody good looking Tranny who gleefully wears size eight to ten outfits which sad to say many females these days can only dream of. So I look great and as a couple we scream through society both in the big city and regional Australta. but here lies the dilema I am not the sterio type Transgender that the media push constantly in docos and tabloids and ironically nore do i gain acceptance from the Trans community. Why? Well here lies the sting because they are so confussed with in themselves with most of them lying in pools of mediocrity that unless you confirm to the “image” of generalisation then you are side stepped with distain. To take on the Transgender “world” is courageous and would be better to attempt grasping candy floss and no doubt safer. So as I do, leave it be, don’t poke it and then let it whinge when it is left ignored. I love my life and yes to have a partner for the last three years half my age is very special in the often sad life of Trans.I am 61. God! I love the word Tranny.!!!! Jayview but now happily Jaye’ Moran

  • dani33

    I am trans. I am also lost, lonely and scared. I am part of no community. BTW Conchita was a drag queen, or so I thought. Not the same. This article helps no one. Why can’t we all get on?

  • susannunes

    A effing men. It’s time this fraud of transgenderism be called out for the anti-feminist, anti-woman filth that it is. It won’t be long, folks, when the surgical mutilation to treat this mental illness is outlawed and tossed into the dustbin of quack surgeries like lobotomies. A man going around crossdressing and calling himself a woman is as offensive as a white person wearing blackface and calling himself or herself a black.

  • Jaye Moran

    Wow Susannunes I can see why you hide behind a false name… or you should. Perhaps you should advocate penial camps for rehabilition. There must be hundreds of excuses you could have to swing the whip and god knows what else. The wonderful thing about humans is that we have the ability to think, use our imagination, dream up plenty of ways to hurt each other and of course kill one another but there are still passive non aggressive ways to live and choose how we enjoy our time on this planet without hurting anybody . Our history Susannunes is loaded with what the true human species is and I suggest you do not go there or at least past the second world war where you may find some solace with the Nazi’s.
    Gender issues are our history right back to year one and will continue to do so and fortunately most people accept it as most of us accept thank god all colours and cultures as we are after all one and the same and that goes right back to the point of inception.
    There is a saying in the Transgender life style Susannunes, it is not our problem but it apparently is yours.

    Jaye’

  • R.S.

    Awesome, excellent, outstanding article. Thank you. Around 90% of male transgenderists are heterosexuals with autogynephilia, which is a narcissistic self-love men have with the fantasy image of themselves as “women.” It’s a very well-known paraphilia but the trannies deny it until the cows come home! In the old days they were just the usual transvestite fetishists, harming only their wives and families, but with the internet has come “support” and “community,” and now they are “transitioning” in droves (cf Bruce Jenner).

    They insist oxymoronically that they are “lesbians.” They demand full compliance with their language-fascism. If you “misgender” one of these c*cks-in-a-frock, look out, it’s a hate crime. And don’t dare kick him out of the ladies’ restroom, even though research shows that male trannies are no different than normal men in violent crime conviction rates, and are convicted of violent crime at 18 times the rate of normal women.

    Anyway, thanks again for a great article.

Close