6 4

So I was just banned from FB, citing hate-speech. This was due to a discussion with a woman who was proud to have turned her toilets in her business into a multigender toilet. I pointed out, regardless of probability that men were abusing this to either expose themselves to children, and or, sexually attack them. All in the guise of wearing a dress. And that this would be on her head if someone was attacked.
I pointed out until one minute ago, gender dysphoria was unequivocally considered mental illness, and not an actual normal state of mind.
She said that it would make them feel safe, and that many trannies were very convincing....I said there's a reason they get attacked often. If a man meets a beautiful woman and dates her, wines and dines her etc etc and when he gets her home, he expects to see a prawn under her knickers not a manhood to match his own. She could not understand how humiliating it could be,?(No not my experience, but someone I know who did punch a guys lights out for such deciept.) And that, he would likely understandably lash out. (FYI, I hate violence and pointed this out)
To my mind, it should be illegal not to declare to an unsuspecting potential partner, your true sex.
On a similar note, I know a beautiful girl, 21yrs, and she's a he. Seriously beautiful, had hormones young. She hates her life, she wants a man, but has learned due to a few attacks to admit before the date that she has a penis. 100% of hetro males bale on her, so she always ends up with a gay man, oned who just wants her manhood in them.
I'm certain she regrets her early hormone treatment but GP's etc are only too eager to put these confused young men on hormones.

David_Reynolds 4 Mar 11

Be part of the movement!

Welcome to the community for those who value free speech, evidence and civil discourse.

Create your free account


Feel free to reply to any comment by clicking the "Reply" button.


I urge you to watch this video where the Professor of Paediatrics discusses the scientific literature on gender dysphoria, it is real but not the phenomenon the extreme left would have you believe, and the problems associated with treatments. The problems the left are creating are far greater than the embarrassment of mistaking a transgender


A trans who gets “involved” with someone has the responsibility to inform that person of their status. Failure to do so makes them responsible for whatever action may result ... and they should be well aware that it might be violent.
Sexual persuasion or “orientation” can be extremely problematic in certain circumstances ... like the military ... where most shower facilities, like locker rooms, are open usage. Most males are not, in any way, accepting of the concept of being viewed in a sexual manner by another male. This fact is 10’s of thousands of years in the making ... and for good reason.
As to mixed gender bathrooms ... I understand why there are those that say this should be allowed ... be considered a “good” thing ... should be applauded ... I can also understand why a Father/Husband would punch out an obvious male regardless of how they “identify” for using the woman’s room with his child or wife inside.

All three of these things are part of the recent “PC” / SJW thought process ...
What is actually quite a small percentage of the Population is trying to force the rest of the Population to follow THEIR Mandates ... seeking to wipe away thousands of years of evolution, custom and culture to create a system that THEY are comfortable in at the Expense of the “Rights” of the Majority of People.


It's a bit strange the first "thought" you go to is "trans sexual abuse" when a business owner declares "inclusivity" in the toilets of her business (presumably not a big business so inadvertently saving money on toilet facilities). You're entitled to feel uncomfortable sharing a toilet with the opposite sex, just like I'm uncomfortable sharing a gym changing room with the opposite sex (becoming more common!!) You have to appreciate in some countries unisexual toilets aren't a big deal (if that is indeed what we're talking about and not separate walled off toilets) So if you were an employee at her business, then you'd have every right to say you're uncomfortable. Personally I don't like sharing the bathroom with ANYONE. The problem I have is you went straight to "Trans sexual abuse" issue which is very niche and Uber specific, thus in conclusion I do actually think you've inadvertently published hate speech. It would have been more reasonable if you suggested she had additional toilets for those who don't feel comfortable, such as the religiously indoctrinated, or those who are a little more sensitive (ie have embarrassing medical conditions like IBS, or just those who don't like taking a shit in front of the opposite sex). Instead you escalated her gesture from 1 to 10 by going straight to "Sexual rape trans men" which for me says more about you, than it does about her.

Having lived overseas I must say there seems to me to be a difference to me between toilets that are open to everyone and toilets that are women only... except for some men wearing dresses. I'm not sure I can fully explain the difference, but it is very different. One thing I can explain that in the case of a truly open toilet I, as a father or grandfather, can go with my daughter/grandaughter. Where in the case of a a 'women plus men in dresses' toilet, I am supposed to let her go by herself.

You've lost me there, (FYI, I condensed what was a civil discussion, and the later, was, to an extent defending Trans in the issues they face and how the leftist PC virtue signaling is causing REAL harm to these people.) you used a term I don't understand, " hate Speech," could you enlighten me what it is, specifically who decided that it is a real thing. ? FYI, thanks for your response it is appreciated.

@David_Reynolds Before I go into an explanation of what "hate speech" is and why a company like Facebook is entitled to establish it's own rules - and of course why your discussion could have been interpreted as "hate speech", I first want to establish that I took your posting "as is".

You didn't make it clear in your original post that this was a civil discussion with the business woman. When read literally, and without the context you've just given me, it looks like she was trying to promote her business as an "inclusive" environment and you were simply shouting "Trans rape/male sexual abuse!" So any misunderstanding my end, I'm afraid comes from how you didn't make clear you condensed the topic of conversation.

Moving on, so, "hate speech" is abusive or threatening speech or writing that expresses prejudice against a particular group, especially on the basis of race, religion, ethnicity, national identity, disability, gender or sexual orientation. Laws vary in different countries, and in the USA hate speech is constitutionally protected.

Now to further complicate things there are different levels of hate speech. There's the obvious: for example, "I call on everyone to behead those that follow the bible" from a certain Islamic Preacher.

Or "The effect of a Jewish presence is a race-tuberculosis of the peoples" and "The ultimate goal must definitely be the removal of the Jews altogether" from a certain Austrian/German dictator. 

As you can see, it brushes everyone who fits within that collectivist paradigm and without mercy calls for them to perish or be chasticised by society. The power of hate speech at it's worst can turn good morally upstanding men into security guards at Auschwitz. We can all hopefully agree, that's bad.

And then it gets further complicated with academic "hate speech" where intelligent people "twist" science in order to fit their prejudiced view of the world. Good examples include DOCTOR David Duke, Richard Spencer, Mathew Heimbach, doctors that insist with FLAWED science white people are more intelligent than black people. White supremacists often cite lesser known books from Charles Darwin which backup their claim for racial superiority, as well as reinventing historical narratives such as holocaust denial. Ultimately the majority of people can see right through these guys that they don't want an inclusive world, they believe "othering" and "tribalism" is part and parcel of the natural human condition, and of course, they almost always hate Jews (not too fond of blacks and Muslims either). Also there's religious supremacy which can be hate speech in some circumstances (such as Islamic supremacy and the most famous fag basher Pastor Steven Anderson).

Then there's "they-have-a-point" hate speech, like James Damore, and I think you fit more into his category.

Just in case you don't know, James Damore became infamous for the "Google memo" where he critiqued Google's culture and diversity policies after attending a Google Diversity program and they asked for feedback, and he effectively sent them an essay describing "Google's Ideological Echo Chamber". 

In short, he disrupted the ebb-flow of Google's "inclusive" policies by arguing biological differences between Men and women. So a company like Google in terms of the industry it's in (infamously a boys club) and ambition to be the best, means more men will always end up working for the company than women, thus Google's "reverse discrimination" policy is equally flawed (basically Google were trying to recruit more women and minorities). A fair argument? Perhaps. Except it's not his job to make that call, and he's opening up a divisive can of worms that isn't in Google's COMMERCIAL interests. Also there are other factors to consider, such as commercially it may be viable to have a near 50/50 male/female workplace at a company like Google when male/female customers of Google is pretty much 50/50 - and for some of the available jobs, they don't always need the best but "great and helps their diversity targets". In a way it doesn't matter if he's right, he's not looking at the COMMERCIAL picture while suggesting women have traits that make them less biologically suited to that line of work. This internal email somehow got around the whole of google and then the world. The power of free speech!

And this is sort of what you did. You took a business womans "gesture" for building multi gendered toilets in her business on Facebook and then made a broad claim on that platform insinuating a pandemic or violence on women from men and trans men in toilets, suggesting any attack on women in the companies toilet is on her. Now statistically, you may have some stats to back up your claim, but the reality is, in her line of business the odds of any of that happening is minimal, and if it does happen it'll be dealt with internally and frankly has NOTHING to do with you, and yet you post your views on a PUBLIC DOMAIN, while segwaying your prejudices and views of women as automatically victimised...because they're women. So almost identical to James Damore.

In a nutshell....It's just a toilet. And all you've contributed is divisive (with some evidence) noise on a PUBLIC forum.

And Facebook can do what it wants and is infamously "inclusive within a matrix of non-division". What that means is open to interpretation. I guess you didn't make the cut with your "hate" speech.

And that's why we have the IDW.


I wonder what the statistics are for sexual assaults by transgender people in bathrooms. Is there a probability statistic number that would change your mind about the risk? What if the percentage of assaults of women in bathrooms by transwomen was less than transwomen's percentage in the overall population?

Oh, I found this article. []

I think the idea of sexual assaults is a red herring. Like gun control laws, criminals will not follow the law.
I think the underlying problem is more of a moral one: of making gender confusion into a 'normal' thing that we are supposed to accept.

@VonO Yeah, you could call it that, except I doub't you could say that to the parents of the children that were raped. Somehow, some of you seem to think theres acceptable collateral damage to having, "Inclusivness. So how many is acceptable, 1 in 1000 1 in 5000? []

@David_Reynolds Yes, I could say that to them.
The reason I am saying that sexual assault is not a red herring is not because I think it is unimportant, nor that it doesn't happen... but because it distracts you from what the progressives are trying to do. So you will never successfully confront them.
As long as they are able to win the argument over gender confusion, they will be successful at pushing gender confusion into the mainstream, and they will win on the 'assault' issue. If you successfully fight them over gender confusion, you will get the assault thing thrown in for free.


Jeez, that's not even hate speech. Even if it is regarded as hate speech, free speech should include hate speech anyway. I also understand that gender dysphoria is a mental condition.
I remember someone said, quite rightly, that from a medical point of view, there is a huge difference between a woman having an abdominal pain and a man having an abdominal pain, and things can get very complicated with anyone who went through transgender operations.
Censorship is real and very bad in the UK. People only have to mention the name Tommy Robinson to be banned from Facebook - that's how bad it is at the moment.

Absolutely, the term hate speech is used against me above by Owen21, and I'm perplexed. Basicly hate speech from what I understand from FB, is an opinion, (Even though scientificly factual, if it hurts a minority's feelings then it's hate speech. MADNESS>
RE: Tommy, this is no doubt the government and the BBC colluding to infringe on his right to free speech. It's disgusting on every level.I use to be a massive fan and respecter of the police; not now, I would not spit on one if they were on fire.

@David_Reynolds I don't know if you've been following Tommy Robinson, but you're right; it appears that the establishment has been trying to destroy him for many years because he just won't stop speaking the truth. The last time he was in a -security prison (for mortgage , would you believe it?! And it was actually committed by his relative, not by him) together with Islamists who hate him, if it wasn't for a couple of prison officers who warned him, he would've been beaten to death or had his face unrecognisable by boiling water with in it.... Well, we can talk about him under other related posts. Love him or hate him, TR is a fascinating figure. Good talking you. Take care.


You'll enjoy this site far more than FaceBook.

So there's no time-out's and micro-aggression police, lol?

@David_Reynolds So far so good...

Write Comment
You can include a link to this post in your posts and comments by including the text q:22185 does not evaluate or guarantee the accuracy of any content. Read full disclaimer.