Just don't, it's another semi-troll.
I said it several pages back, those that answer 'I absolutely support your right to identify as a woman and be addressed as her as long as you support my rights to identify as a unicorn (or indeed, a hamster) and be addressed as 'your imperial greatness' - they're the equivalent of those that answer black lives matter with 'all lives matter'
They know exactly what the point is and what's being discussed / at stake, are using smart-arsedness 'to make it humorous', but we know what they're doing.
Next they'll deny it and tell us to stop being so serious.
@hite-rite don't be a dick. Honestly, why even post that?
As this caused me emotional stress I have reported your hate-speech to HR for further investigation.
Yawn. https://www.reddit.com/r/onejoke/about/
I think the people who compare it with identifying as a unicorn - let's call them unicorners - are like many slightly neurodivergent people in that they are attempting to over-rationalise the issue. Logically, sure, you could compare the two ideas, but this isn't a situation where logic applies.
And as for clinging onto science - that's a pretty poor understanding of the concept of science. In the early days scientific discourse was full of people proclaiming that they knew things with absolute certainty, only to be made to look very silly sometimes within their own lifetimes. Science already knows it knows very little about consciousness and the mind, but really that's not the point. The fact is we have millions of people standing up and saying this is how they feel, so let's address that. Who's to say that one day we will discover the basis for the phenomenon?
And what is 'man' or 'woman' anyway? They are simply words in English, with no real definition other than the customary one. In the same way that there's no such thing as a fish. So why can't we expand those definitions a bit? Really, why not?
I have had an argument many times in the past with someone who claims that allowing trans women to be called 'women' erodes women's rights, but I'm not really sure how that's possible and he's not able to explain it to me convincingly.
I’ve been out out of this since page one, but what the f__k are you talking about?
It would appear to be an attempt to combine moronic veiws with oh-so-funny humour. Someone is clearly a Richard Littlejohn fan.
I think the people who compare it with identifying as a unicorn – let’s call them unicorners – are like many slightly neurodivergent people in that they are attempting to over-rationalise the issue. Logically, sure, you could compare the two ideas, but this isn’t a situation where logic applies.
Maybe some - and if that is the case I wholeheartedly apologise to them.
But some - and I can very quickly identify someone in my immediate circle - are not neurodivergent, they're just argumentative, bigoted people.
In some ways I'd have more 'respect' (not exactly the right words, but YKWIM) if they just came out and said they hate blacks, or TG, or whatever. Instead of mealy mouthed shit like 'all lives matter' and 'I identify as a unicorn' and then denying they mean anything bad by it., and i should stop being so touchy.
If someone says to me they have changed sex I’m going to say you haven’t.
Why? Why do you have to say anything? Why can’t you just let it go?
It's because poah's a**ehole was misassigned as a face at birth and now he can't stop talking out of it
But some – and I can very quickly identify someone in my immediate circle – are not neurodivergent, they’re just argumentative, bigoted people.
Ya, Pies Morgan tries this "but why can't I identify as an attack helicopter then" crap and it's certainly not neurodivergence
I have been avoiding this thread because this topic usually gets very bad tempered and polarised
I have some real doubts about the whole trans issues from the abhorrent behaviour of some trans activists to the safe spaces issue
However out of basic respect for what are obviously very troubled people I would never "deadname" anyone and try to treat every individual with respect. Its a basic part of being a decent human being. What difference does it make to me to show that basic level of respect? None at all
I have had an argument many times in the past with someone who claims that allowing trans women to be called ‘women’ erodes women’s rights, but I’m not really sure how that’s possible and he’s not able to explain it to me convincingly.
It's the same argument used against gay marriage, and equally spurious. I swear, some people seem to think it's going to be made mandatory.
Ya, Pies Morgan tries this “but why can’t I identify as an attack helicopter then” crap and it’s certainly not neurodivergence
No, there's a far more appropriate word to describe Piers Morgan.
It’s the same argument used against gay marriage, and equally spurious. I swear, some people seem to think it’s going to be made mandatory.
Its not the same arguement
Its not spurious ( the apprehension is real even if you don't accept the actuality is) and thats a classic example of polarising the argument
You need to keep people onside and not to make it so "them and us"
I have some real doubts about the whole trans issues from the abhorrent behaviour of some trans activists to the safe spaces issue
What do you mean by the 'WHOLE' trans issue? I think / hope that is just bad phrasing but as written that sounds like all of it? I understand completely some aspects are unsupportable (as you say, the behaviour of SOME pro-trans campaigners is abhorrent) but to say you have doubts about all of it, I'm struggling to understand that from you.
I'm a fervent supporter of trans issues, at the same time I can understand some of the concerns around eg safe spaces. It's doesn't have to be all or nothing; I wouldn't expect people to accept all of it, there are always extremists.
However out of basic respect for what are obviously very troubled people I would never “deadname” anyone and try to treat every individual with respect. Its a basic part of being a decent human being. What difference does it make to me to show that basic level of respect? None at all
So much this.
Christ, there's some sort of black hole equivalent for empathy in some posters on here
They really ought to consider ****ing right off
Its not the same arguement
Its not spurious ( the apprehension is real even if you don’t accept the actuality is) and thats a classic example of polarising the argument
Sure it is. It's a fear of people who are a bit different.
The **** is "apprehension"? White folk were apprehensive of black folk. Straight folk were apprehensive of gay folk. Parents were apprehensive of vaccines. It's all born from ignorance.
You're talking about actual human beings here. People need to adult the hell up and deal with their apprehensions.
You need to keep people onside and not to make it so “them and us”
I think you'll find that it's not this side of the discussion doing the Othering. You'll always get a few with chips on their shoulder of course, I said this earlier, but mostly people just want to be recognised and accepted.
I think / hope that is just bad phrasing but as written that sounds like all of it?
this. It is bad phrasing. You did get my gist - its around the behaviour of some of the activists and the conflict of rights around safe spaces etc not of the right of people to transition if they want so long as they are making a free informed choice.
Following long in depth conversations with folk who have transitioned where I tried to gain understanding I accept I do not know enough to understand and probably will never understand. Same as I cannot understand how anyone can believe in a god. Its beyond my ken. I accept what they say but I cannot understand it
But that does not stop me from accepting people as who they are and behaving in a decent way to them. Always. Its a basic cornerstone of human decency.
Sure it is. It’s a fear of people who are a bit different.
NO it is not. You really need to understand that. Thats a really nasty statement. Thats a classic othering and deliberate polarising of debate.
How dare you tell women what they are feeling? How dare you dismiss their concerns as fear and bigotry. How dare you
The women I have spoken to about this have been fighting for equal rights since before you were born. to dismiss concerns as fear and bigotry is a nasty slur. to equate it with racism and homophobia is a vile slur
This is why I will keep out of this debate in general. Express any doubts about any aspect and you get shouted down and called a bigot.
Once again I am sorry I entered this . To be called a bigot is highly offensive
Thanks TJ, was important for me to clarify that and hope you didn't take it as an attack. i didn't want to misinterpret and draw a wrong conclusion, or want others to do the same.
Like you say, there are aspects that despite being very close to, I don't understand - doesn't mean I don't accept them. I don't understand quantum physics, or how radios work either....
No worries theotherjonv. I have no issue with asking for clarification
How dare you tell women what they are feeling? How dare you dismiss their concerns as fear and bigotry. How dare you
Of course it's fear. What else can their concerns be otherwise? A better question might be, is that fear justified?
You can't throw [group 1] under the bus just because [group 2] doesn't like them, or are scared of them. There are plenty of fights to be had.
I don't "dare" tell women anything, I wouldn't be so presumptuous to tell anyone how they should feel. I am absolutely on their side. But I will call out injustice and irrationality whether it comes from a woman, a man or a potato plant.
to equate it with racism and homophobia is a vile slur
"it" being transphobia?
Equating transphobia with homophobia is a vile slur?
Are you sure about that?
How dare you tell women what they are feeling? How dare you dismiss their concerns as fear and bigotry. How dare you
And how dare you disregard the views of my third wave feminist friends and try to claim the entirety of feminism for your second wave feminism friends.
How dare you try to say my friends don't have to fight for their rights as women all the time because your friends did all the hard work in the 70s and 80s.
Second wave feminism made some great strides for women's rights but let's not pretend it was a truly inclusive movement. It excluded minority women, it excluded poor women, and, of course, it excluded trans-women.
If you grew up in that era, as I imagine you and your friends did, then you are going to have been heavily influenced by it and, particularly in the UK, there's a good chance you subscribe to the biological sex-based absolutism of that movement.
If I were you, I would try and get out of the echo chamber and talk to some younger feminists. Try telling them they don't care about women's rights and the reason is because your friends have already done all the hard work for them.
"It" being concern for safe spaces / single sex services.
I tell you 3 times its nothing to do with fear of the people involved. therefore it is not transphobia. Its a vile slander to claim it is and so to dismiss then as bigots
What you and Bruce are doing is polarising debate, alienating potential allies
Neither of you know what is in these peoples heads and what yo are doing is mansplaining to them telling them what they are thinking and you are wrong.
Very nice,. shut down debate, dismiss any concerns as bigotry.
How arrogant
This is why I and many others willnot join this debate at all because there can be no debate with people who shout Transphobe and bigot all the time
I did non of those things you accuse me of Bruce
You absolutely have on other threads.
You once said something along the lines of, 'Perhaps young people don't care as much about these issues because they didn't have to fight for them the way my friends did.'
It's echoed by this above:
The women I have spoken to about this have been fighting for equal rights since before you were born.
It's the implication that only your friends views are valid. Your friends' views should be listened to but so should my friends' views. Stop disregarding them.
Amongst my friends' concerns are that if you start policing single sex spaces then who does the policing? This is not a 'hypothetical', this is actually happening. Women who don't meet an arbitrary standard of femininity can find themselves harassed, often by men who are 'protecting' women's spaces.
Your friends have concerns and fears that are not based in reality. My friends have concerns and fears that are actually being played out every day.
Whose fears do you think I'm going to take more seriously?
Your friends’ views should be listened to but so should my friends’ views. Stop disregarding them.
How about listening then instead of just simply shouting "transphobe" Bigot"
As you even indicate that was no definitive statement I made. It was a question I posed looking for answers. I wondered if that was the case
How you can claim you know what goes on in others heads is beyond me
Stop disregarding them.
I am not, I never have done. the rights of the two groups are in conflict and I know no way of solving it
How about listening then instead of just simply shouting “transphobe” Bigot”
Fine, I'm listening. Tell me what your friends are worried about.
The question is, does listening mean I'm not allowed to respond? Because that is what you're saying we should do. Listen to your friends but for the love of god don't question what they are saying.
I've told you exactly what my friends are worried about and can provide plenty of examples of this happening.
And, by the way, I haven't called anyone a transphobe or a bigot, yet.
How you can claim you know what goes on in others heads is beyond me
I'm not. I'm responding to what your friends have said with what my friends have said. No mind reading necessary.
I am not, I never have done. the rights of the two groups are in conflict and I know no way of solving it
Well, no. The opinions of some second wave feminists and people whose views were formed during the 70s and 80s are in conflict with the opinions of some third wave feminists and people whose views were formed in the 90s and 00s.
The conflict is entirely manufactured and you are falling for it.
The Witch Trials of TJ Rowling....
Good luck arguing for actual women's rights against this insane screeching, there can be no disagreement, only hate and bigotry.
Good luck arguing for actual women’s rights against this insane screeching, there can be no disagreement, only hate and bigotry.
I love the fact that you can't make a coherent point, so you fall back on vague statements that fall down in the face of a moment's scrutiny.
But hey, keep shouting the slogans. It's a strategy that seems to be working.
**** it, this thread is not going to be good for my mental health so I'm going to step out.
One thing I will say is I think these threads are a lot better than they used to be. I'm often about to make a point but find other people have already made it. People who are making genuinely bigoted statements are being called out and less than fully formed opinions are being questioned.
Honestly, I think it's a big improvement on what these threads were just a few years ago and I think a large part of that is down to people like @boriselbrus and @theotherjonv sharing their experiences which can't have been easy. You have my total respect. Don't let the (remaining) bastards get you down!
actual women’s rights
Can you clarify what you mean because I can interpret that two ways depending where the emphasis of actual is?
Are the rights actual, or are you saying that only 'actual women' have these rights. Which then brings an inference.
As with TJ's point last night, I'm sensitive to the nuances because sometimes this lack of clarity isn't actually there - it's a deliberate but ambiguous choice of words and before forming an opinion I want to give benefit of the doubt.
“It” being concern for safe spaces / single sex services.
This is of course a valid point. I looked into this a bit and I found a report from Stonewall where they asked people who run women's shelters what they do about trans women. Mostly they were admitted and mostly accepted by the CIS women who were using the facility. Obviously this isn't conclusive and the report is open to bias, but it's there for discussion.
As for single sex services - how should we allocate those? Why are they needed? What harm comes from admitting a trans woman? What happens when trans women need these services? Is allocating services according to one's birth sex a flawed model?
These are real questions by the way, not rhetorical ones. They need to be discussed and answered IMO.
TJ, I do empathise with your concerns here. It appears the choices are either to ignore the concerns of trans people, or ignore the concerns of the many women who feel this is threatening them. And like you, while I've been in support of the former I haven't wanted to disregard the latter. As a cis man, I will never fully understand either side as I'll never experience either's struggles. So I don't want to end up mansplaining to a load of (cis)women why their concerns are invalid.
What I've concluded for now though, is that a lot of those arguing trans rights threaten womens rights are either reactionary or, worse, arguing in bad faith. I have to make some effort to detangle this.
The prison debate is a good example to think through. So some women fear that if the process of gender reassignment and subsequent relocation to women's prison facilities was made too easy, women could be put in danger. OK, so to my mind, it's reasonable to be concerned that creating a system that male sexual preditors could exploit may put women in danger. But that's not really a concern about trans people, it's a concern about male sex offenders. The issue is when people instead think 'no, we can't have trans women in women's prisons because trans women themselves are inherently dangerous and preditory'. That's transphobia.
A more clearcut example: The Dail Mail recently published a whole article about a young women's oh-so-terrifying bathroom experience with a trans women, that seems to have been based on a lie. They are just stirring up hate as they always do.
I think we have to be careful to filter out the genuine concerns of women from this transphobia.
You will have almost certainly shared a bathroom with trans people already.
It's also worth noting, as Contrapoints has discussed, that arguments about trans rights are dominated by the rights of trans women. For example, I've not heard any men complaining about trans men having access to men's bathrooms (indeed trans men are almost certainy in more danger from cis men than the other way around).
As I write this I realise there's probably a deep irony here. I suspect a trans man with a vagina, who presented as a man, would likely experience a lot of hassle using womens' bathrooms, by the same kind of women who don't want trans women in their bathrooms
Anyway, the point is, most transphobia seems to hinge on the idea that men's inherently higher propensity towards sexual and other physical violence becomes embodied in trans women.
This is why I and many others willnot join this debate at all because there can be no debate with people who shout Transphobe and bigot all the time
But you did join the debate. And I think your comments did come across as a little bit “I’ve nothing against trans people but…”.
Yes and I am sorry I did so as once again Bruce and Cougar shout down any concerns about any aspects where conflicting rights come into conflict as bigotry and transphobia.
Bruce - you have called me and my friends transphobes thus bigots on numerous occasions
Thanks for once again insinuating I am a bigot poly. Nice
Cougar
direct quote from you
Of course it’s fear. What else can their concerns be otherwise?
so this statement from you is false
I don’t “dare” tell women anything, I wouldn’t be so presumptuous to tell anyone how they should feel.
You are telling them their concerns are based on fear of trans people when it is not.
Yes Poly - and the but is that many of my friends have concerns that I relayed in the spirit of open discussion. the result is I get shouted down as a bigot and all my friends are bigots. the fact that two of these friends have close trans relatives they are supporting with love and care means nothing.
No nuance allowed, no doubts allowed, no debate allowed. any doubts you are a bigot. Relaying my friends concerns makes me a bigot.
Its not helpful at all. Its not conducive to any debate
I have cougar telling me what my friends motivations are ie fear of trans people when its not. How dare you tell me what my friends motivations are, get it so wrong and then double down on it
right. last post on it.
And please stop calling anyone with any doubts a transphobe. Its highly offensive
“It” being concern for safe spaces / single sex services.
I already answered this. It's natural to be concerned, of course. How to you propose we ally those concerns?
I tell you 3 times its nothing to do with fear of the people involved. therefore it is not transphobia.
What is it to do with, then?
Its a vile slander to claim it is and so to dismiss then as bigots
How about "ignorant"? All these friends you're white knighting for, have any of them ever knowingly met someone trans?
What you and Bruce are doing is polarising debate, alienating potential allies
Neither of you know what is in these peoples heads and what yo are doing is mansplaining to them telling them what they are thinking and you are wrong.
It's exactly what you're doing.
All we have to go on regarding your friends is what you tell us. So far you've done a good deal of ranting but not much actual explaining.
This is why I and many others willnot join this debate at all because there can be no debate with people who shout Transphobe and bigot all the time
For someone who won't join the debate you're doing an awful lot of typing.
the rights of the two groups are in conflict and I know no way of solving it
I do. It's quite easy really. Stop othering and start being nice to people.
Yes and I am sorry I did so as once again Bruce and Cougar shout down any concerns about any aspects where conflicting rights come into conflict as bigotry and transphobia.
I'm not shouting anything down, I'm disagreeing with you. Sorry about that.
You are telling them their concerns are based on fear of trans people when it is not.
What is it then?
You do realise, don't you, that this reads an awful lot like "I'm not racist, I just don't want darkies living next door to me"? And sure, maybe that's a misinterpretation on our part. But that being the case, if you want to address it then you're going to have to explain yourself better beyond some handwave about ephemeral "concerns" backed up with vitriol when called out on it.
And please stop calling anyone with any doubts a transphobe. Its highly offensive
I'm not calling anyone with "doubts" a transphobe. "Doubts" are not the issue here, that's not transphobia, it's basic ignorance (in the literal rather than pejorative sense). Continuing to hold the same distasteful views after being presented with new information is when it becomes bigotry.
Here's an idea. Why don't you stop talking about your friends who by your own admission we can't possibly know what they think, and give us your thoughts?
Interesting piece in the Grauniad today. Here's a snippet:
She’d found out a few years earlier, aged 21, when she went to the doctor after waiting years to get her period. She expected to be told to put on weight. Instead, Khumalo discovered she had the genetic condition androgen insensitivity syndrome (AIS): her body has XY chromosomes but is unable to respond to male sex hormones, so her genitals developed as female. In a 2016 blogpost after Miss South Africa, she spelt out what the condition is: “[It] resulted in me being physically female, but genetically male. I’ll spare you the long biology and genetics lecture.”
Not quite sure how this fits with Poah's 'science'. I'm obviously aware that this is a rare case, but it certainly proves that a rigid interpretation based on chromosomes is unwise.
It appears the choices are either to ignore the concerns of trans people, or ignore the concerns of the many women who feel this is threatening them.
There is a third route, and it's where TJ's stance collapses. What do you do with a child who's frightened of monsters in the wardrobe? Do you invest in barricades and nail the door shut, or do you hold their hand and explore the wardrobe together to see if there are in fact any monsters in there?
The solution to allaying concerns is reassurance, not pandering.
As I write this I realise there’s probably a deep irony here. I suspect a trans man with a vagina, who presented as a man, would likely experience a lot of hassle using womens’ bathrooms, by the same kind of women who don’t want trans women in their bathrooms
Yep. I've said this on previous threads. Trans people still need to use the toilet. So the women's loos either get trans men or trans women, which would we prefer? If trans women aren't really women then trans men aren't really men so presumably everyone squawking about toilets will be quite happy with a fully-transitioned man in there. Maybe we could get some urinals installed for them.
These are real questions by the way, not rhetorical ones. They need to be discussed and answered IMO.
Possibly. Do they need to be discussed and answered by men? Or can men (including me) just butt out and leave it to cis and trans women to determine?
I cannot tell whether my question/position is driven by a desire to STFU and stop shoving my GDMF male oar into everything (good) or is a cop-out because I can't be bothered wrestling with this shit (probably bad).
Are there many women who feel threatened or is it a vocal minority? And how does it compare to numbers of trans women who feel threatened? Who is most at risk?
@stevenmenmuir it feels like a reasonable amount of women already (see the protests in Scotland recently)
But as the Tories are, through desparation, likely to try to win the next election on the culture wars, we can expect this to rise as the Dail Mail etc. stir up the fear
But weren't the protests in Scotland led by the Scottish Family Party an organisation led and formed by Richard Lucas formerly of UKIP? The protests last week were fronted by Calvin Robinson and Laurence Fox, the less said about them the better. They looked to me to be very small but loud protests.
