-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
UK PM Rishi Sunak: "A man is a man, and a woman is a woman, that's just common sense"
- Thread starter icehorse
- Start date
Rishi Sunak is a politician, not a medical expert stating a peer-reviewed position. His views don't override those of medical organizations.
Thankfully, the position of the NHS, which is one of the UK's leading medical authorities, follows medical consensus rather than political rhetoric:
www.nhs.uk
Thankfully, the position of the NHS, which is one of the UK's leading medical authorities, follows medical consensus rather than political rhetoric:
Gender dysphoria - Treatment
Treatment for gender dysphoria aims to help people live the way they want to, in their preferred gender identity or as non-binary.
Can you explain your claims here? They are not self evident.
Rishi Sunak is a politician, not a medical expert stating a peer-reviewed position. His views don't override those of medical organizations.
Thankfully, the position of the NHS, which is one of the UK's leading medical authorities, follows medical consensus rather than political rhetoric:
Gender dysphoria - Treatment
Treatment for gender dysphoria aims to help people live the way they want to, in their preferred gender identity or as non-binary.
Can you explain how any of what you just posted is relevant?
What is it you'd like to talk about? This is your thread, what exactly is the topic?
I will expand a bit on "talk amongst yourselves". I'm genuinely interested in understanding what posters think about this short clip
I will expand a bit on "talk amongst yourselves". I'm genuinely interested in understanding what posters think about this short clip
Seems like you're not, since you're complaining of the relevance of what people are saying when they offer their thoughts.
So again, what is it you actually want to discuss? Just say it.
I don't care to indulge your posts, so I feel no obligation to answer what you ask because I have found, based on past threads, that you tend to ask questions to elicit specific responses and dismiss or ignore answers that don't align with your opinion.
However, for other readers: What I posted is the position of the NHS on gender dysphoria, which acknowledges the condition and the existence of trans and non-binary people. This is in clear contrast to Sunak's simplistic and medically inaccurate dismissal of non-binary gender identities.
I have complained about nothing.
Why would you choose to deliberately misinterpret what I've said here? I have done nothing but ask simple questions about the claims of other posters.
Can you explain how you got from what Sunak said to "dismissal of gender identities"?
I can, but as I said, I won't indulge your posts that seek to elicit specific answers and have a clear agenda to them (and again, this conclusion is based on extensive exchanges in past threads). I have already summarized what I think of Sunak's rhetoric.
Have a nice thread, though.
Sir, I haven't deliberately misinterpreted anything. You're evading saying openly what you want to discuss here. Why is that? If I'm misinterpreting you, provide the correct interpretation: What do you actually want to talk about?
If there's a misunderstanding, this is your shot to be crystal clear.
You said I was complaining, I am not.
I will reiterate what I said in post #7:
What aspect of what I said above is not crystal clear?
==
I have a suspicion that some RFers take issue with what Sunak said. But instead of making any assumptions, I thought it would be good to just ask people what they think. Is there something wrong with that?
Walks like a duck, quacks like a duck...
The aspect that isn't clear is questioning the relevance of people's thoughts on the video when you just asked for them.
There's nothing wrong with it per se.
So: what you actually want to discuss is:
Do we agree with Sunak or not?
Great. So when people explain to you that they don't it shouldn't surprise you or strike you as irrelevant to the conversation. Glad we cleared that all up.
With all the sincerity I can muster, can you show me where in this thread I was complaining?
I was NOT questioning the relevance, they might have some. But I'm genuinely interested in understanding how they connected the dots, because that is not clear to me.
No, that's both a false dilemma and a strawman.
I'm not surprised that some posters disagree with Sunak. And I never said that any responses were irrelevant. Can you see that asking to explain relevance is NOT the same as claiming irrelevance?
As for clearing things up, it strikes me that quite the opposite is true.
Post #5.
"I was just asking a question..."
Mkay sure.
You literally were, lol.
It's not clear to you, after all you've posted about trans people and issues on this site, that when a conservative politician says "men are men and women are women" in a stump speech that it's a reference to trans issues? Really? Really really? You just have no idea?
**** me. So you don't want to discuss whether we agree with Sunak or not?
Apparently so!
So again. For the 3rd or 4th time: what do you actually want to talk about, if it isn't whether we agree with Sunak?
Shadow Wolf
Certified People sTabber & Business Owner
Another anti trans thread in a recent surge of them and that claim needs explained to you? Amd your post, post 5, strongly supports this being yet another anti trans thread as youbasked what relevance does pointing out Rishi is a politician whos thoughts aren't congruent with the NHS.
That Sunak is an ignorant idiot?
Shadow Wolf
Certified People sTabber & Business Owner
You sound like this member who said a lot of crap abiut atheists amd then tried to errect nonsensical excuses to hide behind (like claiming it was for research).
You have been questioning relevance in a way that makes you seem unable to see how opposing viewpoints are connected.