Split Thread: Different attitudes homosexual and transgender individuals

[Emily's Cat]

Originally Posted by Rolfe

Oh yes, language changes. I keep having to remind myself that it's now OK to use "hopefully" in the sense of "it is to be hoped that". (As opposed to "to travel hopefully".) But nobody can dictate this. You can't just say, I decree that "gay" now means "homosexual" because you want it to be so, it has to happen naturally and by consensus. And that is the part the trans-activists are skipping.

I queried a friend on her use of "enervating" to mean "exhilarating". Turned out she'd read it used in that context twice and so thought that's what it meant. I showed her the dictionary definition, that it meant the opposite of what she thought it meant. She said, no, it now means "exhilarating" because I saw it that way in a couple of articles. I maintaned it took a bit more than a couple of lazy columnists committing a malapropism to change the meaning of a word. I think I was right. Thirty years on, "enervating" still doesn't mean "exhilarating".

But it's a thought. How many times must a malapropism be committed before it actually changes the definition of a word?

I learned something new today because of this. I always thought "enervating" meant the same as "energizing", but it's the opposite!

[Emily's Cat]

Originally Posted by saraban

I've always used They in this way

Mother: I saw your Uncle Jack at the train station

Me: Where were they going?

Father: I saw your Auntie Jill in the pub

Me: What were they drinking?


Have I been using it wrong?

If I have I've only found out since I saw the discussions on here

Depends a bit on what your native language is.

[Emily's Cat]

Originally Posted by HansMustermann

Upon (over)thinking it over a bit more, here's what irks me the most about the "gender" thing, as in, which gender role you identify with: it's not even progressive. It's more benighted conservativism by the back door than even the actual conservatives. It's effectively rolling back the clock by almost a century.

The whole point of coming up with the idea of gender roles is that it's a mostly arbitrary role, not something that you're wired from birth to be like. Preferring pants doesn't make you more masculine or less feminine, it's just a quirk in a particular point in time, and, say, the Romans would have thoroughly disagreed about pants being proper male attire. (Hell, pants didn't even exist in the current form until very recently on a human time scale.) Or liking pink clothes with big honking flowers and butterflies doesn't make you more feminine or less masculine, and a million samurai men would disagree with it being feminine or anything. Wanting to practice with a bladed polearm doesn't make you less feminine or more masculine, and, again, a million samurai women would have disagreed with it being masculine. It was in fact thoroughly a lady's weapon. (Well, starting with the Edo period, anyway.) Etc.

That was the progressive part: there are no fixed roles that you must fit, much less make it a core part of your identity. If you don't want to get married and raise children, it doesn't mean you're less feminine, it just means you don't want that part of the role. It doesn't mean you've got the 'wrong' wiring or anything.

Fast forward to the 2020's and now you MUST not just fit every woman stereotype to the letter, but make it a core part of your identity, unless you're somehow wired 'wrong'. (E.g., by being wired like a man instead.) That's rolling everything back to prewar attitudes.

No flippin' wonder so many girls are now 'fleeing womanhood like it's a house on fire'. Because it's either you identify as something else, or see above, we're back to someone else telling you what you're wired to like or do. And this time you better not just comply, but make it a core part of your identity.

That's about as progressive as the flat earth theory is. In fact, it's Iran level of progressive. No, seriously, the left just literally rediscovered Iran's idea that yeah, you can diverge from your role, if you fully transition to the other acceptable role.

Pretty much yeah. That's my view of it anyway.

I think the other problem with the "gender" approach is that I think it creates additional barriers to people who actually have dysphoria. It precludes treatment for a real mental health disorder by re-casting it as an "identity" in this way.

[Emily's Cat]

Originally Posted by HansMustermann

And there you have the fallacious arguing right there. You handwaved some general stuff about AVERAGES, have shown exactly ZERO reasons why they'd affect anything that doesn't already fall under

I believe that shutit isn't actually attempting to make those arguments themself. I get the impression that they are attempting to present the reasoning that activists are using for the arguments that shutit thinks those activists are making.

It's very difficult to engage with, though, as it ends up being very confusing. I believe that most of shutit's rhetoric would fall under the heading of "Devil's Advocate" argumentation.

[Emily's Cat]

Originally Posted by HansMustermann

It's a role, like when they cast Cavill as the Witcher.

Complete aside: Good casting that, Superman does a surprisingly good job being a taciturn mutant.

Also, for my birthday I got a lovely Gwent set with all the cards and a wooden playing surface! It's fantastically geeky, and the best thing I never knew I wanted!

[Emily's Cat]

Originally Posted by JoeMorgue

Then transgenderism is an invalid concept.

Ding ding ding! By golly, I think them's got it!

[Emily's Cat]

Originally Posted by shuttlt

Should nothing. Are tied to actual sex. You think it's an accident that the sex that is biologically evolved to hunt and fight, and is genetically far more disposable tends to have the dangerous, dirty, physically demanding jobs.... where as the sex that was evolved to be smaller, weaker and nurture children gets associated with jobs like teaching and nursing? There is a biological reality here that can not be escaped.

You conflate descriptive with prescriptive.

Correlation is not causation.

[Emily's Cat]

Originally Posted by shuttlt

This is pure liberal theory rather than practical reality. The practical reality is than men, as a group, have qualities that females don't and vice versa that goes beyond penises. Society is necessarily built around that difference. The idea of trying to re-engineer society to erase that is suicidal lunacy.

And the idea of trying to engineer society around forcing those generalities into every citizen is cruel and tyrannical.

[Emily's Cat]

Originally Posted by JoeMorgue

The entire language is in pretzels because you, and a lot of other people, think the that in case the only way we can be tolerant or supportive is to pretend that a lot of stuff that doesn't make sense just makes sense.

Gender and sex are different except when they aren't. Gender rolls are a thing except when they aren't. Men and women aren't expected to "x" but it's still a big deal if a man does a thing a woman is expected to do as long as it is ironic or subversive.

I think you've got a misplaced "you" in there. Try adjusting your targeting algorithm.

[Robin]

Originally Posted by shuttlt

This is pure liberal theory rather than practical reality. The practical reality is than men, as a group, have qualities that females don't and vice versa that goes beyond penises. Society is necessarily built around that difference. The idea of trying to re-engineer society to erase that is suicidal lunacy.

The "gender critical" side have this contradiction.

On the one hand they say that "gender" and "man" and "woman" refer to nothing more than biological sex.

But on the other they say that "man" and "woman" are categories that go beyond biological sex and are social categories so deeply embedded that to lose them would cause society to crumble

You can't have it both ways

So which is it?

[Robin]

Originally Posted by shuttlt

Left and Right are borderline meaningless terms, without a lot of clarification

I was responding to your generalisation about the "Left" and you had no clarification about it.

So can I take it from this reply that you were generalising about a borderline meaningless category?

[Emily's Cat]

Originally Posted by Robin

The "gender critical" side have this contradiction.

On the one hand they say that "gender" and "man" and "woman" refer to nothing more than biological sex.

But on the other they say that "man" and "woman" are categories that go beyond biological sex and are social categories so deeply embedded that to lose them would cause society to crumble

You can't have it both ways

So which is it?

Neither, seeing as only one of those is something that the gender critical side actually says. The other is... something dreamed up about a strange traditionalist/conservative/religious view, perhaps.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

"Gender" is a polite term for sex, and in that usage, "man" and "woman" are the terms for adult male human and adult female human respectively.

"Gender Roles" encompass all of the absurd and idiotic chains that are placed on males and females by society. They include expectations of presentation, dress, behavior, and temperament that are enforced via social interaction, and sometimes by legal contsraint (i.e. burkas and females not being allowed education).

Those gender roles are embedded in our culture... but to eliminate them won't harm society in any way at all, other than making some old people upset that some males have long hair.

[Ziggurat]

Originally Posted by Emily's Cat

Those gender roles are embedded in our culture... but to eliminate them won't harm society in any way at all, other than making some old people upset that some males have long hair.

How would you even do this? This strikes me as unfalsifiable.

But even if you could, it seems like there's a Chesterton's fence aspect to it. I don't think we need all our gender roles, but that doesn't mean that none of them do anything useful. I suspect some of them do. In particular, I suspect gender roles make matchmaking easier. But in fairness, this too is unfalsifiable. There are no societies we can look at which have no gender roles. We can't run an experiment where gender roles are eliminated. The best I think we can really do is debate specific gender roles, since specific ones do vary between societies and can change over time. But the idea of eliminating all gender roles, or that it would even be a good idea to do so, seems like wishful thinking.

[Elaedith]

Originally Posted by Robin

The "gender critical" side have this contradiction.

On the one hand they say that "gender" and "man" and "woman" refer to nothing more than biological sex.

But on the other they say that "man" and "woman" are categories that go beyond biological sex and are social categories so deeply embedded that to lose them would cause society to crumble

You can't have it both ways

So which is it?

I have never heard anyone with gender critical views say the latter statement. Either you are confusing 'gender critical' views with something else or have heard them misrepresented.

[shuttlt]

Originally Posted by Robin

I was responding to your generalisation about the "Left" and you had no clarification about it.

So can I take it from this reply that you were generalising about a borderline meaningless category?

If you point to the post you mean, I will gladly clarify. There are lots of different ways of talking about left and right and grouping it. The US is both a left wing and a right wing country depending on how you look at it. There is no sense in which Ayn Rand is a leftie without employing a conception of left-right that is different to the one used by the majority of the people you were calling "right" in your post.

[shuttlt]

Originally Posted by Robin

The "gender critical" side have this contradiction.

On the one hand they say that "gender" and "man" and "woman" refer to nothing more than biological sex.

But on the other they say that "man" and "woman" are categories that go beyond biological sex and are social categories so deeply embedded that to lose them would cause society to crumble

You can't have it both ways

So which is it?

Apologies, I missed this post before.

You shouldn't read anything I say to be representative of gender critical feminists. Emily's Cat and Rolfe will not be surprised to learn that I am not a feminist, let alone a gender critical one... although obviously I have quite a bit of sympathy for the position they are in at the moment.

The word "nothing" is doing a lot of work in your post. It is very common for mundane, clearly understood physical objects to have symbolic, cultural meanings. Strip out the word "nothing" and the problem goes away.

[shuttlt]

Originally Posted by Ziggurat

How would you even do this? This strikes me as unfalsifiable.

But even if you could, it seems like there's a Chesterton's fence aspect to it. I don't think we need all our gender roles, but that doesn't mean that none of them do anything useful. I suspect some of them do. In particular, I suspect gender roles make matchmaking easier. But in fairness, this too is unfalsifiable. There are no societies we can look at which have no gender roles. We can't run an experiment where gender roles are eliminated. The best I think we can really do is debate specific gender roles, since specific ones do vary between societies and can change over time. But the idea of eliminating all gender roles, or that it would even be a good idea to do so, seems like wishful thinking.

I very much agree with this.

There is an aspect of this that reminds me of the transgender part of the topic. Emily's Cat thinks that a world without these gender roles would be great. Other posters in this thread think changing the concept of "woman" and giving puberty blockers to kids would be great. OK, but what if they are wrong?

You can't just flick things back to how they were once you have made these changes. The functioning world that existed before will be gone, and we will be living in a world where important things that make society work are broken (and people have been harmed in the process). Society needs to evolve and experiment and move forward, but the push in both these cases seems to be to try and change the whole of the west to operate in this way without waiting to see the consequences play out. What if you're wrong?

[shuttlt]

Originally Posted by Emily's Cat

And the idea of trying to engineer society around forcing those generalities into every citizen is cruel and tyrannical.

I haven't said that. I think that they come from innate differences between men and women. Active and eternal effort is needed to resist this. All societies impose roles and expectations on people. The choice is between a society that is evolved around our natural preferences, and one that is designed around some idealised conception of what our preferences should be. I'm not saying that every woman should be at home holding a baby and cooking dinner. I'm saying that without the constant propagandising and nudging, more of them would be and would be happier for it.

I think you are in a battle with nature just as much as the trans-activists are.

[novaphile]

Apologies if I've mentioned this before, but through an odd quirk of fate, I used to provide 'security' for a small group of male strippers, and through this, ended up meeting and working with a lot of gay men.

The two confronting things I found about those segments of the gay community was:

1. How utterly loud and explicit all conversations were, when they featured anything to do with sex.

2. How incredibly misogynistic the conversations were about women.

The vitriol expressed by gay men towards women (including the gay men who presented as quite ordinary straight men) was only exceeded by the incredible levels of hate, expressed by the gay men that liked to dress as women, and perform as women.

If any of that culture has moved into trans communities, I can really understand why women (including lesbians) would be concerned.

[Rolfe]

Yes, you're right. It's something that is frequently noted and remarked on.

Once again, not all (gay) men. I have gay men friends who are extraordinarily sympathetic to and supportive of women's issues, including but not limited to lesbian rights. They're lovely men to be friends with, because there's nothing sexual or flirty creeping into the relationship. But the other sort, the women-haters, certainly exist, and are certainly well represented among the demographic of transwomen.

Not only that, but many AGP transwomen, who are not gay, actully exceed the level of woman-hating shown by the gay males. They want to be women, but at the same time they hate women, in many cases this seems to stem from jealousy, that women have, effortlessly, what they can never acquire by hours of surgery and makeup. This is then reflected back in accusations against women that these AGP men are "far more a woman than you'll ever be" and that women are therefore jealous of transwomen for their amazing performative femininity.

Honestly, it's a cesspit.

[mikegriffith1]

I really don't care one little bit if some guy wants to self-identify as a female. Fine, whatever floats your boat. But, I think it's fundamentally unfair to allow males who identify as females to compete in female sports.

Why not make a separate sports category for transgenders? Or, how about stipulating that transgender females (i.e., males who identify as females) can participate in female sports only if they have the same approximate muscle mass as the average female, and only if their height and weight are in the average female height and weight range? Otherwise, allowing transgender females to compete against biological females is like forcing a lightweight-class boxer to fight a heavyweight-class boxer--the heavyweight boxer is much bigger and stronger than the lightweight boxer. That's why boxing divides boxers by weight class.

The simple biological fact of the matter is that the vast majority of males are stronger, taller, and faster than the vast majority of females. There are rare exceptions, but they are just that: rare exceptions.

A transgender female is still, biologically and scientifically speaking, a male. This is why transgender females have so often dominated, and in many cases set new records, when allowed to compete against biological females.

[Rolfe]

Oh, this terminology is getting really confusing. At one point, probably about five minutes ago, a transgender female was a woman who was taking testosterone and had had her breasts removed. Males are not females and can never become females, and so the use of the word "female" to describe a male is not really appropriate.

On the subject of sports though, it's not about muscle mass or height or any of that. Male and female bodies are fundamentally different in everything from the proportion of fast-twitch muscle fibres to the angle of the femur to the pelvic girdle. It's been shown time and time again that height and weight matched males regularly wipe the floor with their female counterparts.

Keep sports sex-segregated.

The real problem arises with these women who are taking testosterone, which is quite properly a banned substance in athletics. It's an anabolic steroid. By taking that, they disqualify themselves from the women's events. Should they be allowed in the male events? You'd think maybe calling it an open category and letting these women in would do it, but testosterone injections also enhance natural male performance. If one competitor in this "open" category is allowed to dope, in what way is it fair if you don't allow all of them to dope?

Answers on a postcard...

[shuttlt]

Rolfe, I would say that your post frames the debate as it should be, but not as it is. There isn't a conversation going on about how to find some kind of compromise where womens sports can continue and be protected from competition from male bodied people, and trans-women and trans-men can also find some way of participating and competing in sports. That's just not the debate. The debate is a battle of ideology that can only be resolved by one side winning and one side losing. Only if your side wins does the question become about how to find a way to get everybody an opportunity to participate in sports.

I also think that something in the way this pretends to be a debate about testosterone and fast twitch muscles is a rhetorical trap.

[Ziggurat]

Originally Posted by Rolfe

Not only that, but many AGP transwomen, who are not gay, actully exceed the level of woman-hating shown by the gay males. They want to be women, but at the same time they hate women, in many cases this seems to stem from jealousy, that women have, effortlessly, what they can never acquire by hours of surgery and makeup.

It's like Gollum and the ring. He both loves and hates his precious. But I think it's not just jealousy. I think there's an element of resentment that they even have these compulsive feelings that they can neither fully satisfy nor get rid of.

[Rolfe]

It's a weird one. It's not that uncommon, particularly if you include the (probably much greater number of) men who experience the AGP fetish without transitioning. I mean, it's weird. I can't understand why it happens as it seems to serve no purpose.

[shuttlt]

Originally Posted by Rolfe

It's a weird one. It's not that uncommon, particularly if you include the (probably much greater number of) men who experience the AGP fetish without transitioning. I mean, it's weird. I can't understand why it happens as it seems to serve no purpose.

I can't speak for all of it, and these are only speculations....

I would say that men are somewhat adrift in the modern world. There are dominance hierarchies amongst men. Typically the men you are talking about are low down on those hierarchies. Not all cases of course, but you have always had lunatics like the Marquis de Sade. I would say that creates two different cases.

Case 1. I do not think low status in men does good things to their brains. They need to feel useful and needed. They feel looked down on by women and feel resentful. I think one of the ways out of that is that they look around for sources of status. As unwelcome as it can be, men see women as being special and getting attention just for being women. That can be attractive. Plus you've obviously got activist groups who will reinforce their specialness and give them status if they just identify as women. They now aren't failures, but can blame the patriarchy and TERFS and feel entitled to things without working for them. All of a sudden they are a noble warrior at the front of the culture war.... a martyr for the cause.

Case 2. There is a documented tendency for perversion to escalate. If you have free access to all the porn, you pretty soon get used to ordinary porn, and your interests become every more specific. I remember stories about Michael Redgrave doing something erotic naked in a suit of armour or having threads attached to his body and having ping pong balls attached to them.

I think this is something about the male mind and male sexuality. Some people become obsessed with cataloguing species of spider, Rod Stewart collects model trains, other men put the same excessive focus into various acts of perversion. Men can be strange. Just look at what gay men get up to without women to hold them back.

Final Thought: One last thing. There is a type of humour that I have always thought is particularly male. If you disagree, I would be interested to hear. Anti-humour. Anti-humour jokes are, I think, typically based on structure. Rod Stewart has his tiny intricate model world with a complicated train track running through it, the anti-humour joke also has a structure whose minute and pointless detail its creator finds pleasing. The Aristocrats is one example. The thing about many anti-humour jokes is that what makes them particularly amusing is the negative reaction of the audience. You aren't supposed to find them funny and that is the joke. There is some frisson to it. I just wonder if there isn't something similar going on here. Half the fun would go out of it if you actually thought they were women.... but the fact that you don't, but can't do anything about it.... well, that would be something.... and the less effort they make... if they can get you to treat them as women while they stand naked in front of your daughter with a beard and penis on display.... now that is funny.

What do you think? Might something like the above cover AGP?

[Rolfe]

I'm particularly on board with 2. AGP has been documented for a very long time, but I think the whole trans aspect is new. I'm studying Richard Wagner at the moment (1813 to 1883) and he was definitely AGP, but he was also normally heterosexual and never appeared in public in women's clothes. (People did know about it though.) Would this type of person have transitioned nowadays?

Porn is definitely one possibility. Accessing lots of what they call "sissy porn" may well be pushing AGP men to extremes. Another is the expansion of women's rights. Who wants to be a woman in the 19th century if you're not stuck there by birth? A bit of both then, but probably the porn mainly.

I need a better example of the kind of joke you're talking about than just the words "The Aristocrats" (which I initially read as "The Aristocats", which is an animated Disney film).

[shuttlt]

Originally Posted by Rolfe

I'm particularly on board with 2. AGP has been documented for a very long time, but I think the whole trans aspect is new. I'm studying Richard Wagner at the moment (1813 to 1883) and he was definitely AGP, but he was also normally heterosexual and never appeared in public in women's clothes. (People did know about it though.) Would this type of person have transitioned nowadays?

Porn is definitely one possibility. Accessing lots of what they call "sissy porn" may well be pushing AGP men to extremes. Another is the expansion of women's rights. Who wants to be a woman in the 19th century if you're not stuck there by birth? A bit of both then, but probably the porn mainly.

I need a better example of the kind of joke you're talking about than just the words "The Aristocrats" (which I initially read as "The Aristocats", which is an animated Disney film).

Wow! OK. The Aristocrats. How are you with foul language? I mean, would you be comfortable listening to the lyrics of WAP being read to you? All I'm saying is that The Aristocrats, rather like Lady Chatterley, is not something you would want to expose your wife or servants to.

There are two versions of it that are worth hearing. It was originally a joke comedians would tell each other and riff off. Gilbert Gottfried famously told a 9/11 joke two weeks after 9/11 at a roast of Hugh Heffner and it killed the audience. He sort of had a decision whether to back off, or jump in with both feet.... so he showed them what inappropriate really looked like.

It's a bit chopped in editing, but what I'm talking about starts about about 4:30

YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the ISF. The ISF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.

I AGREE

They then made a movie of lots of comedians one after another doing their spin on the joke. Below is Hank Azaria telling it:

YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the ISF. The ISF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.

I AGREE

There is something a bit like an Andy Warhol film in seeing the same joke told over and over for 90 minutes.

If you don't like dirty jokes... it occured to me that Norm McDonald made anti-humour his specialty. His structure is typically an overly long setup and then the joke is how much he wasted your time by not having a proper payoff. Obviously the audience laugh, but there is something strange going on that I think has to do with power. People receiving his jokes don't always seem completely comfortable, and that's part of the joke.

YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the ISF. The ISF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.

I AGREE

Andy Kaufman was also a master at this kind of thing. The point is to try and build and hold as much tension as possible in the setup of the joke and the art is in somehow keeping that going for as long as you can. Then the punchline is failing to deliver on that. Kaufman would pretty much just walk off stage without delivering a punchline at all, which was the joke. There are people to this day still waiting for the punchline to his final joke. It's kind of like performance art.

I definitely get the impression from you and Emily's Cat that a naked man in the women's changing room would build up a bunch of tension. If it was me, my finish would be to go *clap* *jazz hands* "The Aristocrats" and then exit to stunned silence.

[shuttlt]

Originally Posted by Rolfe

I'm particularly on board with 2. AGP has been documented for a very long time, but I think the whole trans aspect is new. I'm studying Richard Wagner at the moment (1813 to 1883) and he was definitely AGP, but he was also normally heterosexual and never appeared in public in women's clothes. (People did know about it though.) Would this type of person have transitioned nowadays?

I take it you've looked into Ludwig II. I've been around a few of his castles. This makes me think of the element of performance, and wearing masks to enable breaking normal social rules.

Also:

YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the ISF. The ISF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.

I AGREE

[Rolfe]

Yes. Ludwig was as camp as a row of tents, and quite obviously had a massive crush on Wagner, but this only creeped Wagner out. Although he wasn't going to let a little thing like that stand between him and his meal ticket...

I don't think Wagner cared tuppence about normal social rules though. He wrote these wonderful dramas featuring love and commitment and self-sacrifice and generosity noble friendship, but as far as he was concerned other people (especially but not confined to Ludwig) were put into this world to behave like that to him. The idea that he might take a bit of it on board himself never even seems to have made it on to his radar.

I'll have a look at some of the clips later. As for bad language and dirty jokes - I'm a vet, remember. That means that once upon a time I was a vet student. I can certainly do bestiality jokes until you might want to come up for air. Although - what's WAP?

[HansMustermann]

Originally Posted by Rolfe

Who wants to be a woman in the 19th century if you're not stuck there by birth?

You wouldn't think anyone would want in Heian period Japan (roughly contemporary with our high middle ages, and about as enlightened about gender relations)either, but the first novel I know of that promotes a... rather... 21'st century US Twitter left-wing view of someone being a woman because he feels like one (and viceversa) is from there and then. Written by a woman, too, IIRC, like most of their literature back then. And shortly thereafter, the first subversion where they literally pray the gay... err... the trans away.

Takes all kinds, I guess

[shuttlt]

Originally Posted by Rolfe

I'll have a look at some of the clips later. As for bad language and dirty jokes - I'm a vet, remember. That means that once upon a time I was a vet student. I can certainly do bestiality jokes until you might want to come up for air. Although - what's WAP?

Ah, I've known a few medical students. Yes. I needn't have worried. WAP is a song that might make you wonder whether Mary Whitehouse might not have had some kind of a point. It was played on Radio1 while I was driving my son to his football training. It's a Cardi B song. It stands for Wet Ass *****.

The chorus goes:

"Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah
Yeah, you ******* with some wet ass *****
Bring a bucket and a mop for this wet ass *****
Give me everything you got for this wet ass *****"

I've done a bit of manual autocensoring there. I don't think I'm going to link to it.

Can you imagine that coming on the radio when you were sitting with your parents?

[Rolfe]

The chances of my parents even knowing where Radio 1 was on the dial are somewhat south of absolute zero. And to be honest that goes for me too.

[shuttlt]

Originally Posted by Rolfe

The chances of my parents even knowing where Radio 1 was on the dial are somewhat south of absolute zero. And to be honest that goes for me too.

I'm with you. My son flicks it over to radio 1 when he gets in the car