So we can’t even have a debate on what that OP raised then?

Guess they should have linked it to Brexit somehow then it would have been fine.

While it was likely to veer into hatred and bigotry, it hadn’t yet, unless there were posts I hadn’t seen, so It did seem a bit strange to shut it down at that stage.

Would the issue have been resolved through debate? I doubt it.

It could have turned funny though.

Who says it needs to be resolved?

Everyone airs their opinion, we all go for cake.

Strange assumption there, zippy – is anything on here ever resolved?

I’d be interested in the mods’ thoughts on why the thread was removed – exactly what forum rules was it in breach of? Colin?

Maybe someone self identifies as a fun sponge?

We shouldn’t judge.

It could have turned funny though.

Maybe that was the problem, the op did come across as a bit deranged, maybe mocking her wasn’t the right thing to do.

Still convinced they were a journo though.

perchypanther wrote:

Maybe someone self identifies as a fun sponge?

spongephobic

https://vignette.wikia.nocookie.net/spongebob/images/a/ac/Spongebobwithglasses.jpeg/revision/latest?cb=20121014113150

“Women have very little idea of how much men hate them.”

Still convinced they were a journo though.

It is also the technique employed by Russia, and Cambridge analytics etc to spread division, fear, blame and ultimately hatred.

What if self id affected men, could we could discuss it then?

https://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/topless-woman-male-only-swimming-pool-protest-gender-recognition-act-amy-desir-dulwich-south-london-a8261801.html

Forget chromosones a true test of gender is “would you willingly shop for curtains? “

“And yet it moves”

As gender is a social construct then we shouldn’t be encouraging anybody to identify as any gender. We should all be individuals. There, problem solved.

The last thing this Forum needs is another ranting woman.

You mean self identifies as a ranting woman. 🙄

What can I say, I’m flawed.

After watching the shape of water, I identify as a fish bro.

FOMO is for realz, blud 

Did I miss something juicy?

The deletion of the thread was a shameful and cowardly act. It would have been more understandable if the thread had been locked and a moderator had posted an explanation of why it had been closed, but simply to erase it and pretend it never existed was an act of censorship and suppression of free speech in the finest Orwellian tradition.

The deletion of the thread seems to be consistent with the continuing efforts of those supporting the concept of self ID to prevent and frustrate a proper public debate of the issues and the potential consequences of the proposed changes to the Gender Recognition Act.

If anything, the attempts to shut down the debate, and the intimidation by activists of those women who are raising objections, makes me think that the likes of rachelgreep are right to be concerned. Those who want self ID to become law are unable to make a case for it which will stand up to proper scrutiny, and are instead trying to prevent rational public discussion of the issues.

Pretty sad it got shut down, transgenderism is something really close to me and my family.

Perhaps if the OP had introduced herself properly and tried to raise it as a topic to discuss instead of going n to full rant mode from the off, it would have maybe set the tone for a proper discussion instead of people taking the pee.

Back on topic: what bike/tyres/coffee maker/Audi/woodburner for women with cocks/men with tits?

Its not censorship nor any repression of free speech.  Some of you don’t get this.  This is a privately owned playground.  It is not a democracy.  If you want to shout your opinions from the rooftops you are perfectly entitled to set up your own forum to do so.  STW is under no obligation to provide a platform for you

TJ, the fact that it’s a private site doesn’t mean that this isn’t censorship, just that it’s the management’s choice to censor as they see fit

(granted, I didn’t see the mystery thread so that ^ ‘s a general comment)

Thats not the point and its not censorships strictly anyway.  Censorship would be somone else telling STW to take it down.

Its not censorship nor any repression of free speech.  Some of you don’t get this.  This is a privately owned playground.  It is not a democracy.  If you want to shout your opinions from the rooftops you are perfectly entitled to set up your own forum to do so.

TJ mansplaining (badly).

This place really has hit the skids.

STW is under no obligation to provide a platform for you

We are all very aware of that fact.

STW is under no obligation to provide a platform for you

And are more or less people creating content for STW now ?

Jamie – so folk seem to not realise this – many a cry of ” what happend to free speech” when threads get closed

Oh – and its not manspalining when its men I am educating 😉

I think you’re taking a fairly narrow definition there TJ; I’d suggest that removal, alteration or suppression of content by anyone in a position to do so would constitute censorship

No point in quibbling over semantics though; I’ll accept “high-handed and patronising” if you prefer

(unless the content was in some breach of the law, of course – then we can probably have your definition of censorship)

It is not a democracy. If you want to shout your opinions from the rooftops you are perfectly entitled to set up your own forum to do so. STW is under no obligation to provide a platform for you

For democracy to exist, people need to be able to express and hear or read facts and opinions, especially so if they are controversial or contentious, and equally they need to be able to hear or read challenges of those facts and opinions. Any business or organisation that is part of – or facilitates – such public debate, such the media, the BBC, Facebook, Twitter, and yes even STW, has a public and moral duty to protect free speech. STW has already taken a stance on the Daily Mail, by refusing to allow direct links to its website, but it has been quite open and honest about this and its ethical reasons for doing so .

Thats not the point and its not censorships strictly anyway. Censorship would be somone else telling STW to take it down.

When the media, commentators and others are afraid to raise or confront difficult issues and question a prevailing orthodoxy, that is a far more effective and insidious form of censorship than any crude government instruction not to publish something.

For example, consider this BBC article on the attempted murder of a UK Athletics official:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-birmingham-37439875

The article completely omits to explain that the attacker was a transwoman, and that the official was investigating an accusation that the attacker had not been eligible to compete as a woman when he won the English women’s fell running championship. These were matters of fact which were known to the BBC at the time it published the article, but it deliberately chose to suppress them. Only after conviction and sentencing did the truth come out:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-birmingham-39266777

Edited to correct the first article linked.

At present, there are rules: to designate yourself female you need to live as a woman for at least two years and have your transition confirmed by a doctor … The MPs pushing for reform hope to amend the 2004 Gender Recognition Act to mean that any man who declares ‘I am a woman’ will have full access to all the rights, protections and places that women have fought for and won over the past century.

Wherever you stand on the question of self id there is a debate that needs to happen and it isn’t happening because –

‘a small, aggressive group of activists — not all of them trans, by the way — want to establish a new norm of debate: that anyone who disagrees with them, or even asks questions, ought to be silenced, sacked or both.’

https://www.spectator.co.uk/2018/03/transgender-activists-and-the-real-war-on-women/

Been on a bender with a barmaid half my age, what did I miss? 😀

A full on rant by a first time lady poster about trans people who thought that STW was the place to do it.

Personally , some of the words were a bit choice even though they passed the swear filter.

No doubt they were directed at a hypothetical person but when I read them I thought of someone on this forum. Someone I’ve never met  but she seems like a thoroughly decent person , Someone who has never rubbed anyone on here up the wrong way. Someone who I deem the most punk rock on here.

I’m glad the thread was deleted even though it had the potential to turn out funny.

No one was nasty to the OP .

Edit: Sodding cocking stupid forum/user.

Oh – and its not manspalining

No doubt they were directed at a hypothetical person but when I read them I thought of someone on this forum. Someone I’ve never met but she seems like a thoroughly decent person , Someone who has never rubbed anyone on here up the wrong way. Someone who I deem the most punk rock on here.

So because of you projecting, and placing our mutual friend in the crosshairs when she probably wasn’t intended to be there, the OP had to be incorrect/deleted?

Seems a bit harsh.

I just assumed it had been deleted due to the repeated use of cock and clit. Still, some folk need to see conspiracy in everything.

It didn’t have to be deleted but it’s deletion was not unexpected given that it was really just Spam.

If the EU thread was deleted I’d also be happy with that.

My first thread on here was asking about servicing a Reba.