Anyway. I'd like to address the initial post on this thread, because so far as I can see, it very quickly devolved into "everybody's a wanker" territory. Bullet points:
- Mention the event name yeah? "Transgenderism and the War on Women" sounds pretty damn transphobic to me. It literally posits that trans people are waging a war on "biological" women. If that's not confrontational, then I don't know what is.
- "Feminism is the new masculinity" - I'm intrigued as to how you reach that conclusion, or think others believe that. What "ideological thought processes" are involved? I might be being thick, but I can't see how anyone would reach that conclusion.
- "Concerns of violence by trans activists". I mean, this is possible - even probable - but nowhere is there a specific threat. This is fairly editorialised.
- "Apparently a lot of feminists" okay this is where we start to devolve into "I'm not taking a stance because of the way I'm phrasing things". Apparently - so you can't give a source? "A lot of" - who? "Feminists" - again, who? I'm a feminist in one regard but other feminists would likely hold some very different views to me. It's not one coherent movement; you can't just say "the feminists" much like you can't say "the Chinese" and assume everyone's of the same mindset.
- "Kicking back" good use of slightly evocative language. The war thing's come back into it. Again, "not taking a stance, but really, I am". Clever. I still want to see a source on this btw
- "That will make it legal for a man to self identify as a woman". Er, no, it would be a woman self-identifying as their gender, which is different to their biological sex. Unless there are dickheads out there who decide to "self-identify as a woman" to "make a point". (And I can see that happening tbh)
- Slippery slope - aah, that old chestnut. It's been used since the birth of the women's rights movement, and now it's feminism being accused of it.
In short, yes. It's okay to self identify. I don't see why anyone should give a shit as to the correlation between genitalia and gender. Someone gives preferred pronouns, use them. Don't be like Jordan Anderson and refuse to call someone by their preferred personal pronouns "in pursuit of truth" (that interview btw from a little while ago, did watch it, I disagree with him ideologically and think his usage of the lobster for instance is tenuous at best, but I forgot to write a true response).
What's the "vague and contentious issue" by the way? I don't know what you mean.
- "The same sporting arena" WOAH nope, strawman! I'm pretty sure that's not mentioned in any regard surrounding this event.
For the record though, I agree with you BBW in that transgenderism in sport is a contentious area and personally, I don't see how MtF trans people can truly compete in female events. Every trans person would have different reactions to medications (if they so choose to transition), so yeah, I can't see how that'd be a starter.
------------------------------------
Long and short of it is that trans-exclusionary radical feminists - TERFs - are shitbags. Their idea of what constitutes womanhood is aggressively anti-trans. Also lost are opinions about FtM trans people, who presumably aren't "real men" or whatever.
Being trans isn't a choice. Sure, gender dysphoria might not be medically "real"(?!), but symptoms present, and the trans people I know really REALLY struggled with coming to terms with their gender identity. To suggest they're "less real" or "not real [gender]" is horrible.
I'd give this multiple likes if I could. It's more cogent than most if not all on this thread.
Seems that this is the latest battleground now that women, racial and LGBT rights are accepted by most except for the most extremes. Trans rights are now the latest for the shouty elements to get their non gender specific undergarments in a twist. Hopefully, amongst the wreckage, there is going to be more widespread awareness raising of gender politics and the things that people go through. More rational voices should emerge. And then onto the next battleground. I'm guessing animal rights.
It would in many ways be better and certainly more harmonious to simply ignore OPs like this. BBW knows exactly what he's doing - put up a vaguely conservative viewpoint on an au courant social justice issue and the snowflakes will come - and it's certainly a valid way to alleviate the tedium of the working day, because they do come - they always show up with their outrage and their couldn't-make-it-up trendy opinions. They're so easy to wind up! Reel 'em in lads!
So, whenever a thread like this is started, I'm faced with a choice. Ignore it and trust that it's harmless and not worth arguing. Or play my role, which we all know well. And I usually choose to play my role. Why?
Well, for a start, my trendy opinions aren't even that trendy. You may notice that the majority of this board is sympathetic to at least a moderate view if not one fully opposed to mine on a great number of issues. I'm not doing this to fit in or to appeal to an echo-chamber of trendy lefties. Would I be posting to CL at all if that was my goal? Woo, SD and Paddy liked my posts again! Go me! Nah, it's not done out of a concern for optics. I know I'm going to get dumped on when I take this position. I do it because it invariably involves standing up for people who are vulnerable. People with a statistically enormous chance of suicide and a history of suffering society's ostracism, hatred and misunderstanding. It genuinely sickens me to see anybody marginalised like this, told they're a threat to 'real' women when they're simply trying to live. And so I have to play my part each time, because I can't stand to see the accepted wisdom of bigots prosper.
I'm aware that a hearts-and-minds approach requires that I argue reasonably and not antagonise, and I really am trying to do that to the best of my capability. Hence my post on page 2 of this thread. Of course, the theatre that BBW sets up in his OP is hard to avoid at first. After all the catcalls have faded, though, this is about empathy and understanding - live and let live.
Seems that this is the latest battleground now that women, racial and LGBT rights are accepted by most except for the most extremes. Trans rights are now the latest for the shouty elements to get their non gender specific undergarments in a twist. Hopefully, amongst the wreckage, there is going to be more widespread awareness raising of gender politics and the things that people go through. More rational voices should emerge. And then onto the next battleground. I'm guessing animal rights.
Some people desperately need to campaign for something, anything. In the past they'd probably have been profoundly religious types (puritans or perhaps witch burners) but the 21st century has given them new avenues to demonstrate their piousness.
I suspect plenty of the trans activists are secretly pretty pissed off that past generations have 'owned' proper causes like the blacks, the gays and female emancipation. It must be hard not to feel that the present crusade is a bit lame in comparison to those historical struggles but then again you have to play the cards you're dealt so they throw themselves into the fray with as much righteous anger as they can muster.
Good shout on animal rights btw, a far more coherent cause than the one currently being discussed and one that I'll probably find myself getting behind in the future.
[M]y trendy opinions aren't even that trendy. You may notice that the majority of this board is sympathetic to at least a moderate view if not one fully opposed to mine on a great number of issues. I'm not doing this to fit in or to appeal to an echo-chamber of trendy lefties. Would I be posting to CL at all if that was my goal? Woo, SD and Paddy liked my posts again! Go me! Nah, it's not done out of a concern for optics. I know I'm going to get dumped on when I take this position. I do it because it invariably involves standing up for people who are vulnerable.
That's it in a nutshell. Basically it's about arguing for what we think is best for social progress, right?
Seems that this is the latest battleground now that women, racial and LGBT rights are accepted by most except for the most extremes. Trans rights are now the latest for the shouty elements to get their non gender specific undergarments in a twist. Hopefully, amongst the wreckage, there is going to be more widespread awareness raising of gender politics and the things that people go through. More rational voices should emerge. And then onto the next battleground. I'm guessing animal rights.
Some people desperately need to campaign for something, anything. In the past they'd probably have been profoundly religious types (puritans or perhaps witch burners) but the 21st century has given them new avenues to demonstrate their piousness.
I suspect plenty of the trans activists are secretly pretty pissed off that past generations have 'owned' proper causes like the blacks, the gays and female emancipation. It must be hard not to feel that the present crusade is a bit lame in comparison to those historical struggles but then again you have to play the cards you're dealt so they throw themselves into the fray with as much righteous anger as they can muster.
Good shout on animal rights btw, a far more coherent cause than the one currently being discussed and one that I'll probably find myself getting behind in the future.
There are some pretty vile thoughts expressed here. I suspect you're not really Santa Claus.
[M]y trendy opinions aren't even that trendy. You may notice that the majority of this board is sympathetic to at least a moderate view if not one fully opposed to mine on a great number of issues. I'm not doing this to fit in or to appeal to an echo-chamber of trendy lefties. Would I be posting to CL at all if that was my goal? Woo, SD and Paddy liked my posts again! Go me! Nah, it's not done out of a concern for optics. I know I'm going to get dumped on when I take this position. I do it because it invariably involves standing up for people who are vulnerable.
That's it in a nutshell. Basically it's about arguing for what we think is best for social progress, right?
Not just that - what's best for the people around us, whether that involves progress or not.
Seems that this is the latest battleground now that women, racial and LGBT rights are accepted by most except for the most extremes. Trans rights are now the latest for the shouty elements to get their non gender specific undergarments in a twist. Hopefully, amongst the wreckage, there is going to be more widespread awareness raising of gender politics and the things that people go through. More rational voices should emerge. And then onto the next battleground. I'm guessing animal rights.
Some people desperately need to campaign for something, anything. In the past they'd probably have been profoundly religious types (puritans or perhaps witch burners) but the 21st century has given them new avenues to demonstrate their piousness.
I suspect plenty of the trans activists are secretly pretty pissed off that past generations have 'owned' proper causes like the blacks, the gays and female emancipation. It must be hard not to feel that the present crusade is a bit lame in comparison to those historical struggles but then again you have to play the cards you're dealt so they throw themselves into the fray with as much righteous anger as they can muster.
Good shout on animal rights btw, a far more coherent cause than the one currently being discussed and one that I'll probably find myself getting behind in the future.
There are some pretty vile thoughts expressed here. I suspect you're not really Santa Claus.
Vile? Go away and be perpetually offended with someone who gives a gnats chuff.
Not just me then? I have read this entire thread and am not really any the wiser. I think its about blokes in dresses. So I'm wondering how the Sweatys feel about going mainstream, they've been doing it for years.
Seems that this is the latest battleground now that women, racial and LGBT rights are accepted by most except for the most extremes. Trans rights are now the latest for the shouty elements to get their non gender specific undergarments in a twist. Hopefully, amongst the wreckage, there is going to be more widespread awareness raising of gender politics and the things that people go through. More rational voices should emerge. And then onto the next battleground. I'm guessing animal rights.
Some people desperately need to campaign for something, anything. In the past they'd probably have been profoundly religious types (puritans or perhaps witch burners) but the 21st century has given them new avenues to demonstrate their piousness.
I suspect plenty of the trans activists are secretly pretty pissed off that past generations have 'owned' proper causes like the blacks, the gays and female emancipation. It must be hard not to feel that the present crusade is a bit lame in comparison to those historical struggles but then again you have to play the cards you're dealt so they throw themselves into the fray with as much righteous anger as they can muster.
Good shout on animal rights btw, a far more coherent cause than the one currently being discussed and one that I'll probably find myself getting behind in the future.
There are some pretty vile thoughts expressed here. I suspect you're not really Santa Claus.
Vile? Go away and be perpetually offended with someone who gives a gnats chuff.
I'll stay right here and be offended or not as I wish.
You obviously give a gnat's chuff or you wouldn't have written your rant in the first place.
Seems that this is the latest battleground now that women, racial and LGBT rights are accepted by most except for the most extremes. Trans rights are now the latest for the shouty elements to get their non gender specific undergarments in a twist. Hopefully, amongst the wreckage, there is going to be more widespread awareness raising of gender politics and the things that people go through. More rational voices should emerge. And then onto the next battleground. I'm guessing animal rights.
Some people desperately need to campaign for something, anything. In the past they'd probably have been profoundly religious types (puritans or perhaps witch burners) but the 21st century has given them new avenues to demonstrate their piousness.
I suspect plenty of the trans activists are secretly pretty pissed off that past generations have 'owned' proper causes like the blacks, the gays and female emancipation. It must be hard not to feel that the present crusade is a bit lame in comparison to those historical struggles but then again you have to play the cards you're dealt so they throw themselves into the fray with as much righteous anger as they can muster.
Good shout on animal rights btw, a far more coherent cause than the one currently being discussed and one that I'll probably find myself getting behind in the future.
There are some pretty vile thoughts expressed here. I suspect you're not really Santa Claus.
Vile? Go away and be perpetually offended with someone who gives a gnats chuff.
I'll stay right here and be offended or not as I wish.
You obviously give a gnat's chuff or you wouldn't have written your rant in the first place.
PS You missed the apostrophe in "gnat's".
Golden rule of arguing on the internet, if you have a lame argument go for the grammar shot, then people will always agree with your main point, it works every time.
Anyway. I'd like to address the initial post on this thread, because so far as I can see, it very quickly devolved into "everybody's a wanker" territory. Bullet points:
- Mention the event name yeah? "Transgenderism and the War on Women" sounds pretty damn transphobic to me. It literally posits that trans people are waging a war on "biological" women. If that's not confrontational, then I don't know what is.
- "Feminism is the new masculinity" - I'm intrigued as to how you reach that conclusion, or think others believe that. What "ideological thought processes" are involved? I might be being thick, but I can't see how anyone would reach that conclusion.
- "Concerns of violence by trans activists". I mean, this is possible - even probable - but nowhere is there a specific threat. This is fairly editorialised.
- "Apparently a lot of feminists" okay this is where we start to devolve into "I'm not taking a stance because of the way I'm phrasing things". Apparently - so you can't give a source? "A lot of" - who? "Feminists" - again, who? I'm a feminist in one regard but other feminists would likely hold some very different views to me. It's not one coherent movement; you can't just say "the feminists" much like you can't say "the Chinese" and assume everyone's of the same mindset.
- "Kicking back" good use of slightly evocative language. The war thing's come back into it. Again, "not taking a stance, but really, I am". Clever. I still want to see a source on this btw
- "That will make it legal for a man to self identify as a woman". Er, no, it would be a woman self-identifying as their gender, which is different to their biological sex. Unless there are dickheads out there who decide to "self-identify as a woman" to "make a point". (And I can see that happening tbh)
- Slippery slope - aah, that old chestnut. It's been used since the birth of the women's rights movement, and now it's feminism being accused of it.
In short, yes. It's okay to self identify. I don't see why anyone should give a shit as to the correlation between genitalia and gender. Someone gives preferred pronouns, use them. Don't be like Jordan Anderson and refuse to call someone by their preferred personal pronouns "in pursuit of truth" (that interview btw from a little while ago, did watch it, I disagree with him ideologically and think his usage of the lobster for instance is tenuous at best, but I forgot to write a true response).
What's the "vague and contentious issue" by the way? I don't know what you mean.
- "The same sporting arena" WOAH nope, strawman! I'm pretty sure that's not mentioned in any regard surrounding this event.
For the record though, I agree with you BBW in that transgenderism in sport is a contentious area and personally, I don't see how MtF trans people can truly compete in female events. Every trans person would have different reactions to medications (if they so choose to transition), so yeah, I can't see how that'd be a starter.
------------------------------------
Long and short of it is that trans-exclusionary radical feminists - TERFs - are shitbags. Their idea of what constitutes womanhood is aggressively anti-trans. Also lost are opinions about FtM trans people, who presumably aren't "real men" or whatever.
Being trans isn't a choice. Sure, gender dysphoria might not be medically "real"(?!), but symptoms present, and the trans people I know really REALLY struggled with coming to terms with their gender identity. To suggest they're "less real" or "not real [gender]" is horrible.
Thank you for this. So much.
I briefly worked with a charity that focuses on providing support services to LGTBQ+ folks. In the very first introduction, they talk about suicides amongst trans people. It's estimated that 25% of trans people attempt suicide, and that number may be as high as 50% for trans people of color.
This is a group of people who are struggling. They need help, and that starts by respecting them and who they are.
If one in 20, 000 people are truly trans then go on that journey and have major surgery with all the side effects that incurs. Self identification is the gateway for Transvestites to be a man Monday to Friday and a woman on the weekend. I guess the advantage of earning more money as a man in the week and then being wined and dined as a woman appeals to some. Homo Sapiens may just be reaching their final decadents. Look what it did to the Romans.
Anyway. I'd like to address the initial post on this thread, because so far as I can see, it very quickly devolved into "everybody's a wanker" territory. Bullet points:
- Mention the event name yeah? "Transgenderism and the War on Women" sounds pretty damn transphobic to me. It literally posits that trans people are waging a war on "biological" women. If that's not confrontational, then I don't know what is.
- "Feminism is the new masculinity" - I'm intrigued as to how you reach that conclusion, or think others believe that. What "ideological thought processes" are involved? I might be being thick, but I can't see how anyone would reach that conclusion.
- "Concerns of violence by trans activists". I mean, this is possible - even probable - but nowhere is there a specific threat. This is fairly editorialised.
- "Apparently a lot of feminists" okay this is where we start to devolve into "I'm not taking a stance because of the way I'm phrasing things". Apparently - so you can't give a source? "A lot of" - who? "Feminists" - again, who? I'm a feminist in one regard but other feminists would likely hold some very different views to me. It's not one coherent movement; you can't just say "the feminists" much like you can't say "the Chinese" and assume everyone's of the same mindset.
- "Kicking back" good use of slightly evocative language. The war thing's come back into it. Again, "not taking a stance, but really, I am". Clever. I still want to see a source on this btw
- "That will make it legal for a man to self identify as a woman". Er, no, it would be a woman self-identifying as their gender, which is different to their biological sex. Unless there are dickheads out there who decide to "self-identify as a woman" to "make a point". (And I can see that happening tbh)
- Slippery slope - aah, that old chestnut. It's been used since the birth of the women's rights movement, and now it's feminism being accused of it.
In short, yes. It's okay to self identify. I don't see why anyone should give a shit as to the correlation between genitalia and gender. Someone gives preferred pronouns, use them. Don't be like Jordan Anderson and refuse to call someone by their preferred personal pronouns "in pursuit of truth" (that interview btw from a little while ago, did watch it, I disagree with him ideologically and think his usage of the lobster for instance is tenuous at best, but I forgot to write a true response).
What's the "vague and contentious issue" by the way? I don't know what you mean.
- "The same sporting arena" WOAH nope, strawman! I'm pretty sure that's not mentioned in any regard surrounding this event.
For the record though, I agree with you BBW in that transgenderism in sport is a contentious area and personally, I don't see how MtF trans people can truly compete in female events. Every trans person would have different reactions to medications (if they so choose to transition), so yeah, I can't see how that'd be a starter.
------------------------------------
Long and short of it is that trans-exclusionary radical feminists - TERFs - are shitbags. Their idea of what constitutes womanhood is aggressively anti-trans. Also lost are opinions about FtM trans people, who presumably aren't "real men" or whatever.
Being trans isn't a choice. Sure, gender dysphoria might not be medically "real"(?!), but symptoms present, and the trans people I know really REALLY struggled with coming to terms with their gender identity. To suggest they're "less real" or "not real [gender]" is horrible.
Thank you for this. So much.
I briefly worked with a charity that focuses on providing support services to LGTBQ+ folks. In the very first introduction, they talk about suicides amongst trans people. It's estimated that 25% of trans people attempt suicide, and that number may be as high as 50% for trans people of color.
This is a group of people who are struggling. They need help, and that starts by respecting them and who they are.
There continues to be a debate amongst neuroscientists and psychiatrists about gender dyshoria - there seems to be a lot of conflicting opinions.
Medical professionals and lawyers need to sort this out in a coherent manner that can actually ensure protection and rights for those that need it.
You can't give legal rights if you can't construct a watertight legal argument.
Comments
So, whenever a thread like this is started, I'm faced with a choice. Ignore it and trust that it's harmless and not worth arguing. Or play my role, which we all know well. And I usually choose to play my role. Why?
Well, for a start, my trendy opinions aren't even that trendy. You may notice that the majority of this board is sympathetic to at least a moderate view if not one fully opposed to mine on a great number of issues. I'm not doing this to fit in or to appeal to an echo-chamber of trendy lefties. Would I be posting to CL at all if that was my goal? Woo, SD and Paddy liked my posts again! Go me! Nah, it's not done out of a concern for optics. I know I'm going to get dumped on when I take this position. I do it because it invariably involves standing up for people who are vulnerable. People with a statistically enormous chance of suicide and a history of suffering society's ostracism, hatred and misunderstanding. It genuinely sickens me to see anybody marginalised like this, told they're a threat to 'real' women when they're simply trying to live. And so I have to play my part each time, because I can't stand to see the accepted wisdom of bigots prosper.
I'm aware that a hearts-and-minds approach requires that I argue reasonably and not antagonise, and I really am trying to do that to the best of my capability. Hence my post on page 2 of this thread. Of course, the theatre that BBW sets up in his OP is hard to avoid at first. After all the catcalls have faded, though, this is about empathy and understanding - live and let live.
I suspect plenty of the trans activists are secretly pretty pissed off that past generations have 'owned' proper causes like the blacks, the gays and female emancipation. It must be hard not to feel that the present crusade is a bit lame in comparison to those historical struggles but then again you have to play the cards you're dealt so they throw themselves into the fray with as much righteous anger as they can muster.
Good shout on animal rights btw, a far more coherent cause than the one currently being discussed and one that I'll probably find myself getting behind in the future.
(runs for cover)
You obviously give a gnat's chuff or you wouldn't have written your rant in the first place.
PS You missed the apostrophe in "gnat's".
I briefly worked with a charity that focuses on providing support services to LGTBQ+ folks. In the very first introduction, they talk about suicides amongst trans people. It's estimated that 25% of trans people attempt suicide, and that number may be as high as 50% for trans people of color.
This is a group of people who are struggling. They need help, and that starts by respecting them and who they are.
Medical professionals and lawyers need to sort this out in a coherent manner that can actually ensure protection and rights for those that need it.
You can't give legal rights if you can't construct a watertight legal argument.