Mr Philips, you have been playing with a loaded deck it appears.

'some of my academic qualifications, (sociology and psychology)'.

Now that answers a few questions for me.

You reject my comments when I don't supply 'proof', you even reject them when I do.

When I comment, that's it. I don't need you attacking, rejecting carrying on. I have spoken.

I do not wish to prove anything.

You don't like it? That's your right. Move on.

I have quoted from articles written by others clearly describing 'facts' such as Massachusetts, and you dare to stand in judgement and dare to discredit things and events you know nothing about or even witnessed.

I and billions of others in the world have access to information like this. We all believe it. Only you don't.

The articles as such are fact because they exist. Their veracity is not in doubt as there is no evidence of challenges or retractions.
So the facts are genuine, whether you like it or not.

You will retract your comments denigrating and refuting the articles in question or you will be seen as a petulant child who has to get his way EVERY time.

Now I understand you better. You tarnish your precious academic qualifications by your stance.

Frankly I'm a little disappointed.

I would expect better from someone with an insight into human nature.

Foxy, you are still standing by your quote that many women are gender fluid later in life.

Question: How have these women changed gender??

When we talk about gender fluidity it involves changes, not just finding a close friend as many lonely, neglected or abused women so often do. They as a person have not changed in their emotional or psychological make up, just found someone who understands and shares their experiences.

When Safe Schools talks about gender fluidity according to Roz Ward it involves breast binding, penis tucking, hormone or surgery to correct their genitals to align with how they believe their gender, and this is not talking about the very rare cases of an hermaphrodite.

Yes, I do, ALTRAV.

<<You reject my comments when I don't supply 'proof' …>>

Especially when I know them to be false. I request evidence (sound reasoning would be fine, too) to demonstrate that you have none.

<<… you even reject them when I do.>>

If your evidence is dodgy or false, yes, I will. And I will always explain why so that you can rebut my reasoning or counter-evidence.

<<When I comment, that's it. I don't need you attacking, rejecting carrying on.

I have never “attacked” you (I will, however, bite back if you start with the character assassination). This is an online debating site - if you don’t like me responding, then either make sure you have evidence for your claims beforehand so that you can shut me up, don’t make demonstrably false claims, or leave.

<<I have spoken.>>

You sound like my father-in-law, here. He, too, believes that his opinions are fact by virtue of him believing them. I hope that's not what you're implying here.

<<I do not wish to prove anything.>>

You also can’t, and that’s been my point all along.

<<You don't like it? That's your right. Move on.>>

That’s an option. Alternatively, I can continue to request evidence and let the deafening silence which follows speak for itself.

<<I have quoted from articles written by others clearly describing 'facts' such as Massachusetts and you dare to stand in judgement …>>

Yes, I do. The hyperbole surrounding ‘Massachusetts’ is not authoritative or something I must humble myself before.

<<… and dare to discredit things and events you know nothing about or even witnessed.>>

I haven’t discredited them yet. Would you like to go through them one by one now?

You’re assuming I know nothing about them, too. I presume you do know a lot about them and have witnessed much of what it is supposedly so horrible. After all, you know it all to be true, and you wouldn’t just believe anything you read on the internet now, would you?

Dear Josephus,

The facts are that women, according to recent
psychological research, are more open to
gender fluidity, especially as they become older.
In short, there is now evidence that supports a
growing trend to late in life change around
sexual preference for women, many of whom have
had children, marriages and in fact lived whole
other lives.

There are increasing stories of women leaving
heterosexual relationships to be with a woman.
There is that thing that lesbians often get
asked - "have you just not had good penis, not
found the right male partner?"

But a lot of women will tell you that part of it
is that sexual connection is incredibly strong and
it feel right with a woman. But it is not just
that. Women are also talking about an emotional
and spiritual connection as well.

As I stated earlier - there's nothing more to add.
If you want the entire article you can get hold of
this magazine at your local newsagent.

Foxy,

LOL, you are off to another year of Googling to find opinions that somehow can be construed as matching your prejudices. Then holding steadfast to your own naive generalisations, while heavily insinuating that your 'sources' agree with and uphold your opinions.

Thinking of your spin, and it is solely something that is in your head, that significant numbers of heterosexual women are requesting, preferring and enjoying anal sex.

There there is your insistence that the ABS supports your construct that '61% of Australians supported SSM'. Why would you be wanting to saying that anyhow when it was the Parliament that decided and legislated?

Now you would have significant numbers of older heterosexual women (married with children too!) undertaking some change to become lesbians. Back to 'straight' people 'evolving' into gays, as you might have it?

Maybe those long years (since the start of OLO?) of advocacy have got to you. For the New Year, get out more and meet some women. They will educate you quickly on what might be going awry with your reckoning.

SSM is in. It is time for you to move on.

leoj,

Before you give any advice to any one else -
try practicing what you preach.

Perhaps then you shall be taken seriously.