# Is this woman a transphobe?



## co-op (Mar 29, 2021)

So on the Aimee Challenor thread I mentioned that women get suspended off twitter for saying they are women and that twitter has gained a reputation for being aggressively anti-gender critical feminists and pro-TRAs. I was challenged for examples - fair enough - and I gave one, but this one came up in my twitter feed today which is another example where I genuinely struggle to see how anyone can meaningfully call this thread "transphobic"



I've cut and pasted the rest of the thread below;



> _No, I wouldn't like to talk about it. I have not said one thing that is transphobic (which has become a meaningless word as it is used so often). I proudly stand for the rights of women and the single-sex exemptions that are enshrined in equality law, and if that is considered transphobic then the problem is with the definition not with my stance.
> 
> I believe in biological reality and do not subscribe to the notion of gender identity especially when it damages women and girls - the oppression of women is based on biology not gender identity and this movement is seeking to remove not only every protection women and girls have but to redefine what it means to be female.
> 
> ...





Anyway, this is what happened.




What am I missing if I don't think this thread is "transphobic"?


----------



## hitmouse (Mar 29, 2021)

Quick thought experiment: Imagine someone wrote the following sentences:

_I have not said one thing that is misogynist (which has become a meaningless word as it is used so often). _ 

_I have not said one thing that is racist (which has become a meaningless word as it is used so often). _ 

_I have not said one thing that is homophobic (which has become a meaningless word as it is used so often). _ 

What would you assume about that person?


----------



## co-op (Mar 29, 2021)

hitmouse said:


> Quick thought experiment: Imagine someone wrote the following sentences:
> 
> _I have not said one thing that is misogynist (which has become a meaningless word as it is used so often).
> 
> ...



The things is, those aren't the sentences written - and as far as I can work out there is no equivalent to the whole horrendous trans "debate". The use of the word "transphobia" to rule out any criticism of a political position such as gender critical feminism as motivated only by "hate" has no analogue anywhere else and this is why I am so baffled and confused by this issue. 

To return to the original post can you at least highlight the "transphobic" sentences?


----------



## maomao (Mar 29, 2021)

Compares being trans to thinking she's black because she listens to Bob Marley.


----------



## hitmouse (Mar 29, 2021)

If you accept transphobia as a valid concept, then it's possible to have a conversation about what side of the line this stuff falls on. If you don't accept transphobia as being a valid concept, which it appears that you don't, then the answer to the question in your OP is obviously going to be no and you're not going to change your mind, so I'm not really sure what the point of this thread is.

As for: "The use of the word "transphobia" to rule out any criticism of a political position such as gender critical feminism as motivated only by "hate" has no analogue anywhere else and this is why I am so baffled and confused by this issue." - lots of words, including the ones I suggested above, are used to describe lots of political positions as being motivated by hate. From one perspective, describing "gender critical feminism" as transphobic is not inherently different to describing "traditional family values" as homophobic, but obviously if you like one of those positions and don't like the other, then criticism of them is going to seem very different.


----------



## Ax^ (Mar 29, 2021)

what thread on here only saw the Reddit stuff


----------



## Edie (Mar 29, 2021)

I have to agree that we women can not identify out of sexual harassment and discrimination, and it’s hard to disagree with anything else she has written. But it’s also true that trans men and women deserve protection from abuse and violence. It is the ridiculous nature of left wing politics that pits one against the other.


----------



## smmudge (Mar 29, 2021)

I think what annoys me most is that they bring in disability as a way to back up their argument but don't seem to have read anything about social models of disability, which argue exactly the opposite of what they're saying. 

Also all the transphobia, that's annoying too.


----------



## iveivan (Mar 29, 2021)

“_I believe in biological reality and do not subscribe to the notion of gender identity”_

The presumption in the post is that trans people do not exist and people who say they are are frauds. That‘s transphobic.


----------



## co-op (Mar 29, 2021)

hitmouse said:


> If you accept transphobia as a valid concept, then it's possible to have a conversation about what side of the line this stuff falls on. *If you don't accept transphobia as being a valid concept, which it appears that you don't,* then the answer to the question in your OP is obviously going to be no and you're not going to change your mind, so I'm not really sure what the point of this thread is.



Of course I accept transphobia is a valid concept but I can't see the transphobia in this thread which got someone banned off twitter. Where is the transphobic bit? Or is it ALL transphobic? Is it, by definition transphobic to be gender-critical (ie to believe that sex is real but gender is a social construct, imposed in order to control - mostly - women). How is that motivated by "hate"? It can be _wrong_, but does it have to be motivated by hatred, is it essential to believe that in order for me to understand transphobia?


----------



## co-op (Mar 29, 2021)

iveivan said:


> “_I believe in biological reality and do not subscribe to the notion of gender identity”_
> 
> The presumption in the post is that trans people do not exist and people who say they are are frauds. That‘s transphobic.



Where does it say trans people don't exist? Or that they are frauds?


----------



## Edie (Mar 29, 2021)

iveivan said:


> “_I believe in biological reality and do not subscribe to the notion of gender identity”_
> 
> The presumption in the post is that trans people do not exist and people who say they are are frauds. That‘s transphobic.


No. My understanding is that you have to accept biological reality, that humans are sexually dimorphic and women’s discrimination and assault is based on our biology. But that does not exclude the idea (not biological reality) that some humans have a conflict between their biological sex and gender identity and are called trans. 

You can believe both those statements, and that trans humans deserve protection, and to suggest that is transphobic is meaningless. Transphobic is hatred of trans humans and wanting to deny them rights or protection.


----------



## iveivan (Mar 29, 2021)

co-op said:


> Where does it say trans people don't exist? Or that they are frauds?



That is what the text I quoted above says. This also says it, “_a person who is born male cannot magically change sex and become more oppressed than females”. _


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Mar 29, 2021)

There is stuff in there I would take some issue with, and I'm not sure the comparisons with race and disability help. But gender-critical positions like this one are consistent positions that do not of necessity come from a position of hate or discrimination, so yes I agree that it is absurd for someone to be banned from twitter for expressing them.


----------



## maomao (Mar 29, 2021)

Twitter is a pretty absurd thing though. Privatised free speech.


----------



## Edie (Mar 29, 2021)

littlebabyjesus said:


> There is stuff in there I would take some issue with, and I'm not sure the comparisons with race and disability help. But gender-critical positions like this one are consistent positions that do not of necessity come from a position of hate or discrimination, so yes I agree that it is absurd for someone to be banned from twitter for expressing them.


Yes. They could wind down the emotion a bit to be fair though. They’ve been banned from Facebook not denied human rights.


----------



## co-op (Mar 29, 2021)

iveivan said:


> That is what the text I quoted above says. This also says it, “_a person who is born male cannot magically change sex and become more oppressed than females”. _



You know there are trans people who agree with those statements? And that it makes no claim at all about the legal, political and healthcare rights of transpeople (to name just a few)? It's just saying that biologically people don't change sex, they can live as a person of another sex - that's a social role, _that's_ gender - but they can't actually claim to literally _be_ the other sex. To argue this seems (a) (to me) commonsense but also (b) something that doesn't say that someone "doesn't exist".


----------



## Pickman's model (Mar 29, 2021)

i think that the tories played a blinder when they introduced the review of the gra which did so much to make the terf / trans thing such an issue in left wing politics. if they'd wanted to divide mainly like-minded people into two camps split on an issue which to onlookers seems arcane they couldn't have done better. well done theresa may! and it's being discussed as a left-wing thing even though the matter at hand isn't a banning on a political forum but a twitter ban.


----------



## co-op (Mar 29, 2021)

Edie said:


> Yes. They could wind down the emotion a bit to be fair though. They’ve been banned from Facebook not denied human rights.



Banned off twitter - this came up in the other thread, it was being queried that twitter operate a pretty heavy hand on GC posters. The person in the thread is getting emotional because she's being asked in for a chat by her employer - that's actually quite threatening as we probably all know.


----------



## wtfftw (Mar 29, 2021)

[.


----------



## Edie (Mar 29, 2021)

co-op said:


> Banned off twitter - this came up in the other thread, it was being queried that twitter operate a pretty heavy hand on GC posters. The person in the thread is getting emotional because she's being asked in for a chat by her employer - that's actually quite threatening as we probably all know.


Oh sorry I got muddled up with the mention of Facebook in the tweet. And yes being questioned by her employer about it is extraordinary.

In your view, how has the left managed to get into this mess- and exert this level of control over society/employers/social media- do you think? Cos I’d be more interested in discussing that than re-hashing the trans thing as that leads to tears.


----------



## Border Reiver (Mar 29, 2021)

Terms transphobes and terf are not valuable. Other differentiation leads to better defined terms and illuminates the political problem of gender difference and sexual difference.

The question is "Is a statement about gender and biological sex factually (scientifically) correct and is it currently legal (not crimnial) and lawful (not a tort).

Excluding transsexuals/transgender persons from a societal, legal or scientific grouping by either pole of the debate leads to major problems.


----------



## co-op (Mar 29, 2021)

wtfftw said:


> I think this is where the problem is. By having gender as a social construct and womanhood based on (born) biology it basically is denying trans people. It doesn't make an actual difference to that if the problem is with society and culture not individually.
> 
> I hope that makes sense.



Thanks for the reply. I don't think that's right because I don't think that this "_*By having gender as a social construct and womanhood based on (born) biology" *_is the same as this "_*it basically is denying trans people*_". It _is_ denying the theory that gender identity is innate and sex is a social construct, which seems to be where trans/queer theory is just now, but that's just a fecking theory, it wasn't handed down on tablets of stone by God, we are allowed to criticise that surely?

I remember horrendous trot on labour kind of rows back in the day, I'm sure most of us over a certain age do, but no one ever said that the debate wasn't allowed, in fact everyone seemed to relish it, far too much probably. No one said "you are denying my right to exist" - and that's because no one was, in fact the argument itself was a proof that all participants did exist.


----------



## LDC (Mar 29, 2021)

Edie said:


> In your view, how has the left managed to get into this mess- and exert this level of control over society/employers/social media- do you think? Cos I’d be more interested in discussing that than re-hashing the trans thing as that leads to tears.



I think it's mostly happened due to the rejection of class and positions that are more antagonistic to capitalism by large parts of the left, and then the replacement of those with largely moral individual positions; and then this position being one that chimes with the prevailing feeling of alienated individualism and rights that's deeply embedded in modern day liberal capitalism.

E2A: That and I think a large number of the people involved are a traumatized mess and this deeply hurts them. And the internet.


----------



## Border Reiver (Mar 29, 2021)

Reading the thread I have not seen a verbatim example of what caused the problem. What exactly was said?


----------



## co-op (Mar 29, 2021)

Edie said:


> In your view, how has the left managed to get into this mess- and exert this level of control over society/employers/social media- do you think? Cos I’d be more interested in discussing that than re-hashing the trans thing as that leads to tears.



That's a massive subject and I don't know that it'd lead to any fewer tears tbh. What I am absolutely sure of is that I know almost no one my age (late 50s/early 60s generation) who isn't massively turned off by the hard-trans position and I know people (all women) who are literally flipping to the political right on it, just to try and stop the gender-identity thing going any further, it's become the hardest wedge issue I have ever known. A good friend is going to vote tory in Scotland on it next month, my age & for the first time in her life, (Alba second vote). I feel like the world's gone mad.


----------



## Border Reiver (Mar 29, 2021)

co-op said:


> Thanks for the reply. I don't think that's right because I don't think that this "_*By having gender as a social construct and womanhood based on (born) biology" *_is the same as this "_*it basically is denying trans people*_". It _is_ denying the theory that gender identity is innate and sex is a social construct, which seems to be where trans/queer theory is just now, but that's just a fecking theory, it wasn't handed down on tablets of stone by God, we are allowed to criticise that surely?
> 
> I remember horrendous trot on labour kind of rows back in the day, I'm sure most of us over a certain age do, but no one ever said that the debate wasn't allowed, in fact everyone seemed to relish it, far too much probably. No one said "you are denying my right to exist" - and that's because no one was, in fact the argument itself was a proof that all participants did exist.


Both "gender" and "sex" are constructs. Neither are "natural" categories.


----------



## hitmouse (Mar 29, 2021)

co-op said:


> Of course I accept transphobia is a valid concept but I can't see the transphobia in this thread which got someone banned off twitter.


Do you think that there are any transphobes within "gender-critical feminism"? Would you be able to give an example of someone who you do think is transphobic, so I can understand where you're setting the bar here?


> Is it, by definition transphobic to be gender-critical (ie to believe that sex is real but gender is a social construct, imposed in order to control - mostly - women). How is that motivated by "hate"? It can be _wrong_, but does it have to be motivated by hatred, is it essential to believe that in order for me to understand transphobia?


I think that gender is a social construct and that humanity as a whole would be happier and better off if we could get rid of it. While it exists, though, I think there are people who seem to be better suited to a gender role which isn't the one assigned to them by society.
I also dunno how useful "hatred" is as a term - someone can, for instance, argue that migrants should be kept out of the country because they think wages will be higher with a more restricted supply of labour. That position doesn't need to be motivated by any kind of hatred, but it'd still be fair to call it anti-migrant, and I wouldn't really object to anyone calling it xenophobic.


co-op said:


> Banned off twitter - this came up in the other thread, it was being queried that twitter operate a pretty heavy hand on GC posters. The person in the thread is getting emotional because she's being asked in for a chat by her employer - that's actually quite threatening as we probably all know.


Is she being asked in by her employer? It reads to me like it's her trade union which wants to talk to her, which is quite a different thing.


----------



## Edie (Mar 29, 2021)

The problem is two fold I think. The first is left wing politics has increasingly focussed on individualism, to the point now that with ‘intersectionist’ politics we can be down to units of one. Far from promoting human rights, this has (counterintuitively and not intentionally) resulted in _increased_ experiences of discrimination in the privileged West. And less commonality, less power, and actually, less identity.

The second is the ideological move away from family and traditional gender roles. Ironically this has also led to a loss of identity. No one is as sure of where they stand any more. This has been good and useful in some ways, but damaging in others. We have lost a connection to the old ways- identity, transitions (especially coming of age), shared beliefs. These things stick society together. The left has pulled the identity of the working class apart at the seams since the 60s now looks on in surprise as it weakens. (The right have taken the traditional approach of just reinstating wealth and power inequality of course).


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Mar 29, 2021)

Border Reiver said:


> Both "gender" and "sex" are constructs. Neither are "natural" categories.


That's highly questionable tbf, unless you're going the whole hog and calling all things constructs, which is all very well but not very useful. It's very hard to explain the workings of sexual reproduction without employing the category 'sex'.


----------



## co-op (Mar 29, 2021)

Border Reiver said:


> Both "gender" and "sex" are constructs. Neither are "natural" categories.



You see I don't agree with that, I think sex is a "real thing" (long debate about what _that_ means sure), gender is constructed but I can see that there is a debate that could be had about that. Is my position transphobic? Is thinking it's allowed to debate it transphobic?


----------



## Idaho (Mar 29, 2021)

Border Reiver said:


> Both "gender" and "sex" are constructs. Neither are "natural" categories.


 
While there are ambiguities and exceptions in sex definitions, sexual dimorphism certainly does exist and to suggest otherwise is to get so lost in the cultural wood as to not see the biological trees.


----------



## mauvais (Mar 29, 2021)

Unless they have shared the specifics of their suspension notification, you don't know what got someone banned from Twitter. Even if they had, you don't know that it isn't a totting up ban.

Then, this:


> _if that is considered transphobic then the problem is with the definition not with my stance._


Try that line with any other form of discrimination.

Given that opening gambit, I haven't attempted to read any further.


----------



## co-op (Mar 29, 2021)

hitmouse said:


> Do you think that there are any transphobes within "gender-critical feminism"? Would you be able to give an example of someone who you do think is transphobic, so I can understand where you're setting the bar here?



I am sure there are people on the GC camp who view trans people in a way that I personally think is transphobic, case in point, someone called Miranda Yardley who appeared on a debate about this on these boards nearly a decade ago. She is a transwoman who argued then (and this is from memory so maybe not 100% accurate) that basically most trans women are autogynophile and that this was essentially a pathology. I'm never comfortable about pathologising sexuality and this seems to me an example of a transphobic position, ironically from a transwoman in this case but my guess is that it's shared with a fair number of other people claiming GC views..



hitmouse said:


> I think that gender is a social construct and that humanity as a whole would be happier and better off if we could get rid of it. While it exists, though, I think there are people who seem to be better suited to a gender role which isn't the one assigned to them by society.



I wouldn't disagree with a word of this



hitmouse said:


> Is she being asked in by her employer? It reads to me like it's her trade union which wants to talk to her, which is quite a different thing.



She works for a trade union, it's her employer.


----------



## Border Reiver (Mar 29, 2021)

Idaho said:


> While there are ambiguities and exceptions in sex definitions, sexual dimorphism certainly does exist and to suggest otherwise is to get so lost in the cultural wood as to not see the biological trees.


It is more complex than that. "Sex" is not just defined by chromosomes. Biological sex has multiple definitions that always need to made clear to avoid misunderstandings. And I am not talking about sexual dimorphism alone. When I studied this some years ago (before it became political) there were multiple indicators of biological sex. Chromosomal sex is important but not decisive. Chromosomes only define chromosomal sex.


----------



## Knotted (Mar 29, 2021)

I love the "I believe in biological reality". It's just so sly and transparent. Yeah, she probably got booted off twitter because the transes who control twitter think biology isn't a reality or something. That must be it.

Of course the implied point is that biological reality determines gender, which is exactly the idea feminists have always fought. The original terfs weren't idiots like this, they were radical critics of identity politics. This is just it's own identity politics and a particularly cranky one at that - all this blatant nonsense about female erasure. And it's also why these idiots are so willing to ally with social conservatives who are also very big on "biology determines gender" including of course gender roles.

The whole thing is just troll questions. Contrived, "I bet you can't answer this" stuff. She probably thinks that trans rights and women's rights are at fundamentally at odds and that sticking it the transes (sorry tra's) is a way of sticking it to the patriarchy or something.

It's a political formation that's fundamentally and obsessively about trying to limit the rights of a small vulnerable minority.


----------



## Border Reiver (Mar 29, 2021)

littlebabyjesus said:


> That's highly questionable tbf, unless you're going the whole hog and calling all things constructs, which is all very well but not very useful. It's very hard to explain the workings of sexual reproduction without employing the category 'sex'.


What defines "sex" in your opinion?


----------



## Knotted (Mar 29, 2021)

Also we have no idea why she was booted off twitter. Stupid trolling thread.


----------



## Edie (Mar 29, 2021)

Border Reiver said:


> What defines "sex" in your opinion?


Oh this is boring. We’ve done this.


----------



## Border Reiver (Mar 29, 2021)

Edie said:


> Oh this is boring. We’ve done this.


So you cannot easily define "sex". As Einstein said, if you cannot explain a concept simply then you do not understand it. Humour me and define sex simply.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Mar 29, 2021)

Border Reiver said:


> It is more complex than that. "Sex" is not just defined by chromosomes. Biological sex has multiple definitions that always need to made clear to avoid misunderstandings. And I am not talking about sexual dimorphism alone. When I studied this some years ago (before it became political) there were multiple indicators of biological sex. Chromosomal sex is important but not decisive. Chromosomes only define chromosomal sex.


How about the definition of 'reproductive sex'. This is where a binary of sexes can be consistently and precisely defined. Within sexually reproducing organisms, there exist precisely two ways in which an individual can get together with another individual to reproduce sexually - ways that are defined as 'female' and 'male'.

I think all sorts of stuff in this debate is up for grabs, but attempts to define a binary system of reproductive sex out of existence always fail on this point.


----------



## Edie (Mar 29, 2021)

Border Reiver said:


> So you cannot easily define "sex". As Einstein said, if you cannot explain a concept simply then you do not understand it. Humour me and define sex simply.


It doesn’t matter. Say something interesting.


----------



## Border Reiver (Mar 29, 2021)

Edie said:


> It doesn’t matter. Say something interesting.


So knowledge is unimportant to you? If we cannot define sex, how can we discuss it?


----------



## Border Reiver (Mar 29, 2021)

littlebabyjesus said:


> How about the definition of 'reproductive sex'. This is where a binary of sexes can be consistently and precisely defined. Within sexually reproducing organisms, there exist precisely two ways in which an individual can get together with another individual to reproduce sexually - ways that are defined as 'female' and 'male'.
> 
> I think all sorts of stuff in this debate is up for grabs, but attempts to define a binary system of reproductive sex out of existence always fail on this point.


So I have no sex as I am incapable of reproduction? You have defined reproductive sex but not "sex". Prepubescent children, post menopausal women, men post vasectomy, and eunuchs have no "sex"?


----------



## 8ball (Mar 29, 2021)

Border Reiver said:


> It is more complex than that. "Sex" is not just defined by chromosomes. Biological sex has multiple definitions that always need to made clear to avoid misunderstandings. And I am not talking about sexual dimorphism alone. When I studied this some years ago (before it became political) there were multiple indicators of biological sex. Chromosomal sex is important but not decisive. Chromosomes only define chromosomal sex.



The chromosomal sophistry.  Show me a human that didn’t come from a cell involving fusion of a small, swimmy gamete and a much larger non-swimmy one and I’ll begin to take you seriously.


----------



## LDC (Mar 29, 2021)

Border Reiver said:


> So I have no sex as I am incapable of reproduction? You have defined reproductive sex but not "sex". Prepubescent children, post menopausal women, men post vasectomy, and eunuchs have no "sex"?



That's been discussed and explained so many times (even just on here) it's ridiculous and fucking boring. It's like someone saying humans have 2 legs and then you pointing to someone that lost a leg in an accident and shouting "Look, they've got one leg, humans _don't_ have 2 legs!" like it's some kind of argument winning gotcha.

Just waiting for "Look, _intersex!_" to come up next.


----------



## Idaho (Mar 29, 2021)

Border Reiver said:


> So knowledge is unimportant to you? If we cannot define sex, how can we discuss it?


I assume you are saying that as there are exceptions and anomalies to the usual male female divide/categories, that this disproves that such categories truly exist?


----------



## co-op (Mar 29, 2021)

Knotted said:


> Of course the implied point is that biological reality determines gender, which is exactly the idea feminists have always fought.



I know we aren't going to agree on pretty much anything on this topic but it's important for anyone else to know that this point ^^^ is just plain wrong. No GC feminist ever has argued that biological reality "determines gender", that's obviously not a radical feminist position, or a gender-critical one.It's absolutely the case that the GC position rejects biological determination of gender roles.

Arguing in one-liners lacks nuance for sure but the GC position is sometimes put as "sex is the _why_, gender is the _how_" (in terms of women's oppression).


----------



## Knotted (Mar 29, 2021)

The very idea of these numpties critterspalining to a trans person about their "biological reality"... Because trans people are unaware of their own biology? They forgot to look down perhaps?


----------



## Border Reiver (Mar 29, 2021)

LynnDoyleCooper said:


> That's been discussed and explained so many times (even just on here) it's ridiculous and fucking boring. It's like someone saying humans have 2 legs and then you pointing to someone that lost a leg in an accident and shouting "Look, they've got one leg, humans _don't_ have 2 legs!" like it's some kind of argument winning gotcha.


I am afraid it is not. Chromosomes do not determine sex, just chromosomal sex. How did we ascertain sex before we knew of chromosomes? This is a matter of science and not politics. 

Please define "sex" simply and scientifically.


----------



## Knotted (Mar 29, 2021)

co-op said:


> I know we aren't going to agree on pretty much anything on this topic but it's important for anyone else to know that this point ^^^ is just plain wrong. No GC feminist ever has argued that biological reality "determines gender", that's obviously not a radical feminist position, or a gender-critical one.It's absolutely the case that the GC position rejects biological determination of gender roles.
> 
> Arguing in one-liners lacks nuance for sure but the GC position is sometimes put as "sex is the _why_, gender is the _how_" (in terms of women's oppression).



These people aren't radical feminists, some of them aren't even feminists. They aren't the second wavers of the 80's. You think this point about "biological reality" was just a point about "well I think antelopes are real". It has content.


----------



## co-op (Mar 29, 2021)

Border Reiver said:


> This is a matter of science and not politics.



Lol. A page ago you were saying that both sex and gender were socially constructed. That's a pretty rapid 180.


----------



## smokedout (Mar 29, 2021)

LynnDoyleCooper said:


> "Look, they've got one leg, humans _don't_ have 2 legs!" like it's some kind of argument winning gotcha.



So are you arguing that all humans have two legs?


----------



## LDC (Mar 29, 2021)

Yes, that's exactly what I meant. _Obviously. _I avoid these threads usually, think I'll go back to that.


----------



## Border Reiver (Mar 29, 2021)

Idaho said:


> I assume you are saying that as there are exceptions and anomalies to the usual male female divide/categories, that this disproves that such categories truly exist?


No. I am making the point that "sex" does not exist as a natural concept, but depends on human knowledge and belief (a construct) not a well defined scientific fact.

For instance people with Androgen Insensitivity Syndrome would have, prior to modern human knowledge, been treated as female because of their overt morphology despite having a Y chromosome (the marker of chromosomal sex).


----------



## Shechemite (Mar 29, 2021)

maomao said:


> Compares being trans to thinking she's black because she listens to Bob Marley.



what is ‘being trans’? Is it the experience of dysphoria, or the meaning that some attach to dysphoria?


----------



## 8ball (Mar 29, 2021)

smokedout said:


> So are you arguing that all humans have two legs?



Actually, if you analyse the average number of legs per person, it becomes clear that legs cannot be considered discrete units, and also when you look at how this data varies by country we observe a “leg spectrum”  which is influenced by culture.

We have to conclude that legs are a social construct.


----------



## Knotted (Mar 29, 2021)

Can anybody imagine say, Julie Bindel, making a song and dance about "biological reality"? As much as I might disagree with her, I would recognise that she's not a "you are your bits" loon.


----------



## Border Reiver (Mar 29, 2021)

co-op said:


> Lol. A page ago you were saying that both sex and gender were socially constructed. That's a pretty rapid 180.


You misinterpret. I am being totally coherent.


----------



## Shechemite (Mar 29, 2021)

Knotted said:


> Can anybody imagine say, Julie Bindel, making a song and dance about "biological reality"? As much as I might disagree with her, I would recognise that she's not a "you are your bits" loon.



Do you think there should be single sex wards in hospitals?


----------



## smokedout (Mar 29, 2021)

LynnDoyleCooper said:


> Yes, that's exactly what I meant. _Obviously. _I avoid these threads usually, think I'll go back to that.



Well it's kind of the point isn't it?  Humans usually have two legs but not all humans have two legs.  Humans usually for into one easily identifiable sex but not all humans fall into one easily indentifiable sex.  Whether you call this diversity part of the natural human spectrum, or abnormal aberrations is really just a matter of personal choice.  Neither can ever really be demonstrated to be 'true' which is why this argument never seems to stop.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Mar 29, 2021)

Border Reiver said:


> So I have no sex as I am incapable of reproduction? You have defined reproductive sex but not "sex". Prepubescent children, post menopausal women, men post vasectomy, and eunuchs have no "sex"?


Sigh. I'm going to try not to get sucked into this, but co-op has made the point about the GC position, which is a consistent position - that oppression of one particular group comes about because of their reproductive role, the thing that can be precisely defined as a binary system. Everything else - the 'constructed' stuff, including including gender - springs from that.


----------



## Thora (Mar 29, 2021)

Knotted said:


> I love the "I believe in biological reality". It's just so sly and transparent. Yeah, she probably got booted off twitter because the transes who control twitter think biology isn't a reality or something. That must be it.
> 
> *Of course the implied point is that biological reality determines gender,* which is exactly the idea feminists have always fought. The original terfs weren't idiots like this, they were radical critics of identity politics. This is just it's own identity politics and a particularly cranky one at that - all this blatant nonsense about female erasure. And it's also why these idiots are so willing to ally with social conservatives who are also very big on "biology determines gender" including of course gender roles.
> 
> ...


Isn't the implication that biological reality determines sex, and gender/roles/presentation is just a social construct     You are male or female but you can dress, play with or behave as you like and liking princesses and kittens or cars and dinosaurs isn't biologically determined.


----------



## co-op (Mar 29, 2021)

Knotted said:


> Can anybody imagine say, Julie Bindel, making a song and dance about "biological reality"? As much as I might disagree with her, I would recognise that she's not a "you are your bits" loon.



She says sex is real, gender is socially constructed. I'm not sure what you mean by "biological reality" but like anyone who thinks the gender critical makes sense she _doesn't_ think that "you are your bits".

If you actually think that GC position is that "you are your bits" then you've got it the wrong way round.


----------



## 8ball (Mar 29, 2021)

Thora said:


> Isn't the implication that biological reality determines sex, and gender/roles/presentation is just a social construct     You are male or female but you can dress, play with or behave as you like and liking princesses and kittens or cars and dinosaurs isn't biologically determined.



Yeah, there is some very odd reasoning here.  The argument from the “biological reality crowd” is that biological sex and gender are _not_ the same thing as each other.


----------



## Thora (Mar 29, 2021)

Border Reiver said:


> No. I am making the point that "sex" does not exist as a natural concept, but depends on human knowledge and belief (a construct) not a well defined scientific fact.
> 
> For instance people with Androgen Insensitivity Syndrome would have, prior to modern human knowledge, been treated as female because of their overt morphology despite having a Y chromosome (the marker of chromosomal sex).


My cat can tell the difference between male cats and female cats and I'm pretty sure she doesn't depend on human knowledge and belief...


----------



## Knotted (Mar 29, 2021)

MadeInBedlam said:


> Do you think there should be single sex wards in hospitals?



I haven't really thought about it. And it's beside the point. I appreciate that there are arguments to be had about single sex safe spaces etc., and it's probably best to be had among those whom it affects. There's a difference between women's concerns and the gender critical ideologues who try to exploit them.

Can anybody give me an interpretation of the point about "biological reality"? Or are you all just going to look the other way and pretend it was perhaps some point about antelopes?


----------



## smokedout (Mar 29, 2021)

Anyway if only there was a long thread about this that we all agreed to restrict discussion on this subject to so that the people concerned (women and trans people) did not have to deal with this debate being rammed in their faces constantly.  Usually on here sadly by cis men.


----------



## LDC (Mar 29, 2021)

smokedout said:


> Well it's kind of the point isn't it?  Humans usually have two legs but not all humans have two legs.  Humans usually for into one easily identifiable sex but not all humans fall into one easily indentifiable sex.  Whether you call this diversity part of the natural human spectrum, or abnormal aberrations is really just a matter of personal choice.  Neither can ever really be demonstrated to be 'true' which is why this argument never seems to stop.



Surely that's some of the variety that gets grouped under intersex though, not trans?


----------



## two sheds (Mar 29, 2021)

Thora said:


> Isn't the implication that biological reality determines sex, and gender/roles/presentation is just a social construct     You are male or female but you can dress, play with or behave as you like and liking princesses and kittens or cars and dinosaurs isn't biologically determined.


I think that's the first post on the thread that I actually understand


----------



## co-op (Mar 29, 2021)

smokedout said:


> Anyway if only there was a long thread about this that we all agreed to restrict discussion on this subject to so that the people concerned (women and trans people) did not have to deal with this debate being rammed in their faces constantly.  Usually on here sadly by cis men.



You can ignore the thread. I put the word transphobia in the title so that those fed up with this can do this.


----------



## MickiQ (Mar 29, 2021)

trans identification (as opposed to trans rights) is one of the new 'religions' where both sides are stating their view is the absolute truth and that any disagreement with their position is the blackest of heresies with everybody claiming the mantle of oppression. It's a horrible subject for debate because there is no real common ground.
No this woman isn't a transphobe or a TERF, she isn't calling for them to be persecuted, she is just stating her belief that having a cock makes you a man and having a fanny makes you a woman and no matter how hard you believe otherwise you can't acttually change that. I thnk the vast majority of the population (and at the risk of being also labelled a transphobe that includes me) ascribe to that view but the majority of the population (definitely including me) also subscribe to the view that transgenders should be allowed to live out their lives in peace free from persecution and ridicule.
There does seem to be an element amongst the trans rights movement that seems to be taking the view that shouting down anyone who suggests their views are not the absolute truth will make them the absolute truth, which is undoubtably backfiring.


Border Reiver said:


> Both "gender" and "sex" are constructs. Neither are "natural" categories.


Sex is a construct really? So the reason I have never gotten pregnant is that I have never believed hard enough?


----------



## Shechemite (Mar 29, 2021)

Knotted said:


> I haven't really thought about it. And it's beside the point. I appreciate that there are arguments to be had about single sex safe spaces etc., and it's probably best to be had among those whom it affects. There's a difference between women's concerns and the gender critical ideologues who try to exploit them.



I remember mixed sex mental health wards (when they were the norm).

sexual harassment and assault were commonplace (although from wannabe gangster man-boys, not blaming trans people for this).

people’s ‘bits’ eh


----------



## iveivan (Mar 29, 2021)

Do trans women need to call themselves men for GC feminists?


----------



## hitmouse (Mar 29, 2021)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Sigh. I'm going to try not to get sucked into this, but co-op has made the point about the GC position, which is a consistent position - that oppression of one particular group comes about because of their reproductive role, the thing that can be precisely defined as a binary system. Everything else - the 'constructed' stuff, including including gender - springs from that.


But that's the thing, isn't it? We all know that story where a man and a woman switched email signatures and they were treated very differently as a result. Now, neither of those people had changed their biological sex, however that's defined. But, as a result of changing a gendered social marker, the way that people behaved to them changed. So it seems like biological sex isn't quite the be-all and end-all here.


----------



## Gromit (Mar 29, 2021)

co-op said:


> What am I missing if I don't think this thread is "transphobic"?





> I believe in biological reality and do not subscribe to the notion of gender identity



The above quote is transphobic. She basically denies their existence. You don’t get more phobic than that.


----------



## Idris2002 (Mar 29, 2021)

Edie said:


> The problem is two fold I think. The first is left wing politics has increasingly focussed on individualism, to the point now that with ‘intersectionist’ politics we can be down to units of one. Far from promoting human rights, this has (counterintuitively and not intentionally) resulted in _increased_ experiences of discrimination in the privileged West. And less commonality, less power, and actually, less identity.
> 
> The second is the ideological move away from family and traditional gender roles. Ironically this has also led to a loss of identity. No one is as sure of where they stand any more. This has been good and useful in some ways, but damaging in others. We have lost a connection to the old ways- identity, transitions (especially coming of age), shared beliefs. These things stick society together. The left has pulled the identity of the working class apart at the seams since the 60s now looks on in surprise as it weakens. (The right have taken the traditional approach of just reinstating wealth and power inequality of course).


spot on


----------



## Shechemite (Mar 29, 2021)

hitmouse said:


> But that's the thing, isn't it? We all know that story where a man and a woman switched email signatures and they were treated very differently as a result. Now, neither of those people had changed their biological sex, however that's defined. But, as a result of changing a gendered social marker, the way that people behaved to them changed. So it seems like biological sex isn't quite the be-all and end-all here.



Why do you think the perception of being female leads to worse treatment?


----------



## 8ball (Mar 29, 2021)

hitmouse said:


> But that's the thing, isn't it? We all know that story where a man and a woman switched email signatures and they were treated very differently as a result. Now, neither of those people had changed their biological sex, however that's defined. But, as a result of changing a gendered social marker, the way that people behaved to them changed. So it seems like biological sex isn't quite the be-all and end-all here.



We all know this stuff, though, don’t we?


----------



## co-op (Mar 29, 2021)

hitmouse said:


> But that's the thing, isn't it? We all know that story where a man and a woman switched email signatures and they were treated very differently as a result. Now, neither of those people had changed their biological sex, however that's defined. But, as a result of changing a gendered social marker, the way that people behaved to them changed. So it seems like biological sex isn't quite the be-all and end-all here.



But this is a point that is _not_ about the sex of the people involved but about the gender roles that were activated by "knowing" their sex (falsely in this case).


----------



## belboid (Mar 29, 2021)

co-op said:


> That's a massive subject and I don't know that it'd lead to any fewer tears tbh. What I am absolutely sure of is that I know almost no one my age (late 50s/early 60s generation) who isn't massively turned off by the hard-trans position and I know people (all women) who are literally flipping to the political right on it, just to try and stop the gender-identity thing going any further, it's become the hardest wedge issue I have ever known. A good friend is going to vote tory in Scotland on it next month, my age & for the first time in her life, (Alba second vote). I feel like the world's gone mad.


Maybe their politics were a bit shit in the first place then.  And this subject is showing up the limitations of some of their feminism.  Someone is gonna vote for _someone who definitely isn’t_ a rapist because they believe in women’s rights? Hmmm....


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Mar 29, 2021)

hitmouse said:


> But that's the thing, isn't it? We all know that story where a man and a woman switched email signatures and they were treated very differently as a result. Now, neither of those people had changed their biological sex, however that's defined. But, as a result of changing a gendered social marker, the way that people behaved to them changed. So it seems like biological sex isn't quite the be-all and end-all here.


I don't really know what kind of point you're trying to make here. Do you think there are gender critical feminists who would take issue with your point about differential treatment due to gendered social markers?


----------



## Shechemite (Mar 29, 2021)

Knotted said:


> The very idea of these numpties critterspalining to a trans person about their "biological reality"... Because trans people are unaware of their own biology? They forgot to look down perhaps?



Does a persons biological reality (Or biological reality per se) ever need to be explained to them? Can I just rock up to the doctors and get the diagnoses and treatment I identify with? Is it always condescending for a doctor to dispute mine (or anyone else’s) perception of biological reality?


----------



## co-op (Mar 29, 2021)

belboid said:


> Maybe there politics were a bit shit in the first place then.  And this subject is showing up the limitations of some of their feminism.  Someone is gonna vote for a rapist because they believe in women’s rights? Hmmm....



I think you'd find little to object to in their politics before and yes my jaw was on the floor when she told me. It is blowing my mind what this topic is doing to the left.


----------



## Knotted (Mar 29, 2021)

Thora said:


> Isn't the implication that biological reality determines sex, and gender/roles/presentation is just a social construct     You are male or female but you can dress, play with or behave as you like and liking princesses and kittens or cars and dinosaurs isn't biologically determined.



It's saying biological sex is biological reality, which is almost an empty truism. They go onto talk about redefining what it means to be a woman ie. "female erasure" theory. It's a bait and switch push on an open door to conjure the pretence that there is some serious opposition to an uncontroversial position and then sneak in a conspiracy theory about women no longer being able to be identified as women.


----------



## Edie (Mar 29, 2021)

hitmouse said:


> But that's the thing, isn't it? We all know that story where a man and a woman switched email signatures and they were treated very differently as a result. Now, neither of those people had changed their biological sex, however that's defined. But, as a result of changing a gendered social marker, the way that people behaved to them changed. So it seems like biological sex isn't quite the be-all and end-all here.


That’s a good point.


----------



## MickiQ (Mar 29, 2021)

hitmouse said:


> But that's the thing, isn't it? We all know that story where a man and a woman switched email signatures and they were treated very differently as a result. Now, neither of those people had changed their biological sex, however that's defined. But, as a result of changing a gendered social marker, the way that people behaved to them changed. So it seems like biological sex isn't quite the be-all and end-all here.


That's got nothing to do with what defines a man/woman though has it, that's good old fashioned sexual prejudice and whilst there is sadly still some life left in that particular beast it is a lot more sickly than it used to be. Listening to conversations between my mother and my daughter about their different life experiences drives that point home more than anything. Clearly it would be better if it ended tomorrow but it will be gone in a couple of generations tops anyway.


----------



## 8ball (Mar 29, 2021)

MickiQ said:


> trans identification (as opposed to trans rights) is one of the new 'religions' where both sides are stating their view is the absolute truth and that any disagreement with their position is the blackest of heresies with everybody claiming the mantle of oppression.



I think the problem is partly that the left has so few tools for dealing with conflicts between oppressed groups - it basically has “solidarity in the face of a common oppressor”, and that’s not completely compatible with the Venn diagram here.


----------



## Knotted (Mar 29, 2021)

co-op said:


> She says sex is real, gender is socially constructed. I'm not sure what you mean by "biological reality" but like anyone who thinks the gender critical makes sense she _doesn't_ think that "you are your bits".
> 
> If you actually think that GC position is that "you are your bits" then you've got it the wrong way round.



I submit that there isn't a GC position. It's a loose alliance of activists and twitter trolls. Some of them more like old second wave trans exclusionary radical feminists and some of them think it's very important and very "gotcha" to have a thing about "sex being real". And this just reeks of the latter.

The "mensturators" thing was about a clumsy attempt of a clinic at being inclusive of trans men and non binaries ie. people born female. And these "feminists" who think that biological sex conditions the oppression of women and forms the very definition of "woman" are actively trying to exclude female born people. It's a kick out all the trannies position. If it was a proper terf they would take care not to do that. It's just one troll after another.


----------



## Shechemite (Mar 29, 2021)

Knotted said:


> And these "feminists" who think that biological sex conditions the oppression of women and forms the very definition of "woman" are actively trying to exclude female born people. It's a kick out all the trannies position.



Eh?


----------



## co-op (Mar 29, 2021)

8ball said:


> I think the problem is partly that the left has so few tools for dealing with conflicts between oppressed groups - it basically has “solidarity in the face of a common oppressor”,



Which, in practise historically hasn't seemed to boil down to anything except telling one group to sit down and shut up and wait until later/after the revolution. 

My point on this thread is - we seem to have moved beyond that (rubbish as it was) to destroying one group absolutely and totally by alleging that they are only motivated by hate, phobia etc. and there is no discussion without those allegations continually being made.


----------



## iveivan (Mar 29, 2021)

How does the fact that there are trans people change the fact or the impression that women are oppressed?


----------



## Knotted (Mar 29, 2021)

MadeInBedlam said:


> Does a persons biological reality (Or biological reality per se) ever need to be explained to them? Can I just rock up to the doctors and get the diagnoses and treatment I identify with? Is it always condescending for a doctor to dispute mine (or anyone else’s) perception of biological reality?



The whole biological sex question relates to intersex people. I don't see it having anything to do with transgender people. If someone is taking hormones to alter their gender, they are going to be more acutely aware of their biology than most people, not less aware.


----------



## Sue (Mar 29, 2021)

belboid said:


> edited cos. legal stuff


You might want to edit that for legal reasons.


----------



## co-op (Mar 29, 2021)

Knotted said:


> And these "feminists" who think that biological sex conditions the oppression of women and forms the very definition of "woman" are actively trying to exclude female born people. It's a kick out all the trannies position.



This is absolutely wrong too. For example GC feminists are opposed to transwomen being allowed to compete in women's sports but are _not_ against transmen being allowed to do so.


----------



## 8ball (Mar 29, 2021)

iveivan said:


> How does the fact that there are trans people change the fact or the impression that women are oppressed?



Please can you quote the point you are querying?  By itself it seems nonsensical.


----------



## co-op (Mar 29, 2021)

Sue said:


> You might want to edit that for legal reasons.





Good spot, and your quoting of it?


----------



## belboid (Mar 29, 2021)

co-op said:


> This is absolutely wrong too. For example GC feminists are opposed to transwomen being allowed to compete in women's sports but are _not_ against transmen being allowed to do so.


Trans men can participate in women’s sports?? That would be a logical position I suppose


----------



## Knotted (Mar 29, 2021)

MadeInBedlam said:


> Eh?



The classic (trans exclusionary) radical feminist position is that trans men ie. female at birth, are still women and they still face the oppression that women face and that feminists should fight for their rights. Attacking a clinic for being inclusive of such female born people, is anti-feminist by this reckoning.


----------



## Shechemite (Mar 29, 2021)

co-op said:


> My point on this thread is - we seem to have moved beyond that (rubbish as it was) to destroying one group absolutely and totally by alleging that they are only motivated by hate, phobia etc. and there is no discussion without those allegations continually being made.



It’s not exactly consistent either. Hence the hyper-vigilance against ‘misgendering’, but the permissiveness (even defence of) geopolitical conspiracism (with the anti-Arab, anti-Muslim and antisemitic garbage that comes with it).









						Trans and/or non-Binary
					

People from the Trans and/or non-Binary community regularly experience deliberate or unintended microaggressions and microinsults




					www.ed.ac.uk
				












						The UK professor, a fake Russian spy and the undercover Syria sting
					

Ex-Observer journalist tells of role in trap to expose disinformation tactics of defenders of the Assad regime




					www.theguardian.com


----------



## co-op (Mar 29, 2021)

belboid said:


> Trans men can participate in women’s sports?? That would be a logical position I suppose



At elite level there will be issues with testosterone use etc, at normal level it's not an issue that anyone has raised as far as I have seen, in fact I think there is a fairly senior level transman playing (without T) in the women's soccer league in the US.


----------



## Sue (Mar 29, 2021)

co-op said:


> Good spot, and your quoting of it?


Edited   

Although I do take belboid's point. Voting Tory and Alba from a feminist point of view seems...very bizarre indeed.


----------



## iveivan (Mar 29, 2021)

8ball said:


> Please can you quote the point you are querying?  By itself it seems nonsensical.


“_I believe in biological reality and do not subscribe to the notion of gender identity especially when it damages women and girls - the oppression of women is based on biology not gender identity and this movement is seeking to remove not only every protection women and girls have but to redefine what it means to be female.”_


----------



## co-op (Mar 29, 2021)

Knotted said:


> The classic (trans exclusionary) radical feminist position is that trans men ie. female at birth, are still women and they still face the oppression that women face and that feminists should fight for their rights. Attacking a clinic for being inclusive of such female born people, is anti-feminist by this reckoning.



It would be yes, the objection is to the removal of the word "woman".


----------



## co-op (Mar 29, 2021)

Sue said:


> Edited
> 
> Although I do take belboid's point. Voting Tory and Alba from a feminist point of view seems...very bizarre indeed.



It is absolutely fecking crazy, I am shaking my head as I type.


----------



## Knotted (Mar 29, 2021)

co-op said:


> This is absolutely wrong too. For example GC feminists are opposed to transwomen being allowed to compete in women's sports but are _not_ against transmen being allowed to do so.



No true Scotsman...

There is no organisation called the "GC feminist party" with a party line. Same incidentally with trans rights activists. Neither group is some monolith.


----------



## Shechemite (Mar 29, 2021)

Knotted said:


> No true Scotsman...
> 
> There is no organisation called the "GC feminist party" with a party line. Same incidentally with trans rights activists. Neither group is some monolith.



Which GC feminists are opposed to trans men/gender dysphoric women being allowed to compete in women’s sports?


----------



## co-op (Mar 29, 2021)

Knotted said:


> No true Scotsman...
> 
> There is no organisation called the "GC feminist party" with a party line. Same incidentally with trans rights activists. Neither group is some monolith.



This is absolutely fair criticism & possibly one way out of this mess is to emphasise nuance not remove it.


----------



## Knotted (Mar 29, 2021)

MadeInBedlam said:


> Which GC feminists are opposed to trans men/gender dysphoric women being allowed to compete in women’s sports?



Interesting question. I don't pay much attention to sport, but I think they usually don't compete with women, correct me if I'm wrong. They would surely have an (unfair?) advantage if they're taking hormones.


----------



## Athos (Mar 29, 2021)

Why insist on one fixed definition for all times, places, and contexts?

Clearly, people mean different things when they say Caitlin Jenner is a 'woman', and when referring to a 'woman' in the context of a disgussion about gynae medicine.

It's clear there's no single definition on which everyone will agree, so keeping on flogging that dead horse as if it's the key to conundrum is a dead end.

Why not agree to disagree on what a woman is, and find common ground on things women have in common (whether or not they're trans)?  And deal with specific difficult edge cases on the facts.


----------



## Smokeandsteam (Mar 29, 2021)

Edie said:


> The problem is two fold I think. The first is left wing politics has increasingly focussed on individualism, to the point now that with ‘intersectionist’ politics we can be down to units of one. Far from promoting human rights, this has (counterintuitively and not intentionally) resulted in _increased_ experiences of discrimination in the privileged West. And less commonality, less power, and actually, less identity.
> 
> The second is the ideological move away from family and traditional gender roles. Ironically this has also led to a loss of identity. No one is as sure of where they stand any more. This has been good and useful in some ways, but damaging in others. We have lost a connection to the old ways- identity, transitions (especially coming of age), shared beliefs. These things stick society together. The left has pulled the identity of the working class apart at the seams since the 60s now looks on in surprise as it weakens. (The right have taken the traditional approach of just reinstating wealth and power inequality of course).



Excellent. Spot on.


----------



## Knotted (Mar 29, 2021)

co-op said:


> This is absolutely fair criticism & possibly one way out of this mess is to emphasise nuance not remove it.



I don't want to be saying "don't talk about changing rooms and sprinting events" if you want to. But there is a definite clot of gender critical activists who are pushing a certain fear mongering ideology. And it's something that's perhaps flexible and has various degrees, but we need to recognise it. Some of it is about changing rooms and sprinting events but there's no need to pit women and transgender people against each other.


----------



## hitmouse (Mar 29, 2021)

MadeInBedlam said:


> Why do you think the perception of being female leads to worse treatment?


Because of patriarchy, innit. But how does patriarchy function?


co-op said:


> But this is a point that is _not_ about the sex of the people involved but about the gender roles that were activated by "knowing" their sex (falsely in this case).


Precisely, yeah. I think that how you're treated has more to do with how people read your gender than with what your biological sex is.


littlebabyjesus said:


> I don't really know what kind of point you're trying to make here. Do you think there are gender critical feminists who would take issue with your point about differential treatment due to gendered social markers?


I think if they're consistent with their politics they probably should. Because if you accept it then a lot of the "gender critical" position starts to look a bit shaky.


MickiQ said:


> That's got nothing to do with what defines a man/woman though has it, that's good old fashioned sexual prejudice.


But again, how do people know who to be sexist against and who to not be sexist against?


belboid said:


> Trans men can participate in women’s sports?? That would be a logical position I suppose


I'm sure they must be very grateful to hear that.


MadeInBedlam said:


> It’s not exactly consistent either. Hence the hyper-vigilance against ‘misgendering’, but the permissiveness (even defence of) geopolitical conspiracism (with the anti-Arab, anti-Muslim and antisemitic garbage that comes with it).


Blimey, that's quite a leap. Where were you thinking of going next?


----------



## Shechemite (Mar 29, 2021)

Knotted said:


> Interesting question. I don't pay much attention to sport, but I think they usually don't compete with women, correct me if I'm wrong. They would surely have an (unfair?) advantage if they're taking hormones.



what’s your no true Scotsman comment based on then?


----------



## Shechemite (Mar 29, 2021)

hitmouse said:


> Blimey, that's quite a leap. Where were you thinking of going next?



Nah, it’s a pattern on ‘the left’. 

Safer spaces! (away from ‘hateful’ women and Jews)


----------



## 8ball (Mar 29, 2021)

Smokeandsteam said:


> Excellent. Spot on.



I agree it's a great post, but am having trouble with the "the left has increasingly focused on individualism" thing.  Is that quite what happened, or was it the split between the left and the working class that led the left in the direction of intersections between minority subsets, gradually boiling the soup of class conflict into something very granular?

I'm sure someone out there has done the work on what happened and when...


----------



## LDC (Mar 29, 2021)

.


----------



## Knotted (Mar 29, 2021)

MadeInBedlam said:


> what’s your no true Scotsman comment based on then?



Co-op was explaining the GC feminist line, and I recognise it but I didn't think that individual GC feminists necessarily followed it. I think it's evolved since the 80's and also is fragmented in certain ways.


----------



## Border Reiver (Mar 29, 2021)

MadeInBedlam said:


> what is ‘being trans’? Is it the experience of dysphoria, or the meaning that some attach to dysphoria?


Dysphoria is emotional reaction, not belief or kniwledge. Your belief/knowledge is separate from your emotional reaction to it.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Mar 29, 2021)

Knotted said:


> Interesting question. I don't pay much attention to sport, but I think they usually don't compete with women, correct me if I'm wrong. They would surely have an (unfair?) advantage if they're taking hormones.


This is largely correct, and at elite levels, a trans man taking hormones would fail a drugs test. Within my martial arts organisation, we had a bit of a struggle a couple of years ago to allow a trans man to compete in men's divisions at certain competitions. There was a fair bit of resistance, including warnings that people 'weren't going to hold back'. But it got through in the end - as it was legally required to, not that it went to lawyers.

Generally speaking, in most contexts, trans people competing in men's sports isn't such an issue as the men's divisions are effectively the 'open' divisions. There is no need to produce an agreed definition of 'man' for them. If anything, problems can arise when women want to play with men to get better competition, something that gets complicated post-puberty in contact sports, but women have played cricket in men's teams at Australian Grade level (a pretty high level), for example.


----------



## Border Reiver (Mar 29, 2021)

MickiQ said:


> trans identification (as opposed to trans rights) is one of the new 'religions' where both sides are stating their view is the absolute truth and that any disagreement with their position is the blackest of heresies with everybody claiming the mantle of oppression. It's a horrible subject for debate because there is no real common ground.
> No this woman isn't a transphobe or a TERF, she isn't calling for them to be persecuted, she is just stating her belief that having a cock makes you a man and having a fanny makes you a woman and no matter how hard you believe otherwise you can't acttually change that. I thnk the vast majority of the population (and at the risk of being also labelled a transphobe that includes me) ascribe to that view but the majority of the population (definitely including me) also subscribe to the view that transgenders should be allowed to live out their lives in peace free from persecution and ridicule.
> There does seem to be an element amongst the trans rights movement that seems to be taking the view that shouting down anyone who suggests their views are not the absolute truth will make them the absolute truth, which is undoubtably backfiring.
> 
> Sex is a construct really? So the reason I have never gotten pregnant is that I have never believed hard enough?


You do not seem to understand the meaning of "construct".


----------



## 8ball (Mar 29, 2021)

iveivan said:


> “_I believe in biological reality and do not subscribe to the notion of gender identity especially when it damages women and girls - the oppression of women is based on biology not gender identity and this movement is seeking to remove not only every protection women and girls have but to redefine what it means to be female.”_



Thanks.


----------



## Shechemite (Mar 29, 2021)

So being trans is holding certain beliefs or having certain knowledge about yourself?


----------



## hitmouse (Mar 29, 2021)

MadeInBedlam said:


> Nah, it’s a pattern on ‘the left’.
> 
> Safer spaces! (away from ‘hateful’ women and Jews)


I really, really don't think this is a productive route to go down, but if you really want to go there, then I don't think the "gender-critical" side comes out looking particular great either:


----------



## Border Reiver (Mar 29, 2021)

Thora said:


> My cat can tell the difference between male cats and female cats and I'm pretty sure she doesn't depend on human knowledge and belief...


I see you attempt to avoid rational debate.


----------



## Shechemite (Mar 29, 2021)

hitmouse said:


> I really, really don't think this is a productive route to go down, but if you really want to go there, then I don't think the "gender-critical" side comes out looking particular great either:
> View attachment 260814



fash alternative famously being a left-wing organisation and/or a university


----------



## Shechemite (Mar 29, 2021)

And yes there’s (increasingly) lots of fash who are courting GC feminism - the Irish freedom party is very keen on this. Also lots of anti-medicine nutters.


----------



## 8ball (Mar 29, 2021)

MadeInBedlam said:


> So being trans is holding certain beliefs or having certain knowledge about yourself?



On the whole breakdown of what "being trans" means at every level - my best answer is... I don't know.
25 years ago there was a lot of discussion around gay people - are we talking about sexual "preference", which sounds voluntary, or are we talking about being "born this way", which removed a lot of angles of stigma but created some other problems etc. etc.

It's fine to not have a fully consistent model of what it means.  We still have a lot of uncertainty about homosexuality but have come to accept it a lot better in the face of that.  

I do wonder whether people would still be banging on about "gay genes" and that sort of stuff if Twitter had been around 30 years ago, though.


----------



## Border Reiver (Mar 29, 2021)

The claim that transwomen are not women suggests that it is moral to treat trans women negatively differently from the women. This equivalent to people who claim that people from other protected groups can also be negatively treated. The law on treatment of trans people is blind to biology. A trans woman has all the rights (almost) of a cis woman.


----------



## Santino (Mar 29, 2021)

mauvais said:


> Unless they have shared the specifics of their suspension notification, you don't know what got someone banned from Twitter. Even if they had, you don't know that it isn't a totting up ban.
> 
> Then, this:
> Try that line with any other form of discrimination.
> ...


What about people being accused of being racist towards white people?


----------



## Santino (Mar 29, 2021)

Knotted said:


> If someone is taking hormones to alter their gender


How does that work?


----------



## Santino (Mar 29, 2021)

hitmouse said:


> I really, really don't think this is a productive route to go down, but if you really want to go there, then I don't think the "gender-critical" side comes out looking particular great either:
> View attachment 260814


Yeah, but you've got Gromit backing you up.


----------



## Shechemite (Mar 29, 2021)

A gromit-exclusionary position is still ok right?


----------



## mauvais (Mar 29, 2021)

Santino said:


> What about people being accused of being racist towards white people?


Yeah? And what would the first bit be, in your scenario?


----------



## smokedout (Mar 29, 2021)

LynnDoyleCooper said:


> Surely that's some of the variety that gets grouped under intersex though, not trans?



That's generally what people are referring to when they talk about sex being a spectrum.


----------



## Santino (Mar 29, 2021)

mauvais said:


> Yeah? And what would the first bit be, in your scenario?


A list of dramatis personae


----------



## MickiQ (Mar 29, 2021)

Border Reiver said:


> You do not seem to understand the meaning of "construct".


What do you define as a construct? I look down and I have a cock and a couple of balls,  I was too young to remember but pretty sure I was born with them, I was present when all my children were born so I know my son was and my daughters weren't. I believe I have a son and three daughters however if you can given me a definition that makes me doubt that well I would be fascinated to read it as I am sure would they. Sorry kiddo you're really a boy my bad for being wrong all this time, Youngest would have been called Patrick if she had been a boy so I'm sure she would be thrilled if I call her that from now on.


hitmouse said:


> But again, how do people know who to be sexist against and who to not be sexist against?


Because one was using a male name and one was using a female name and the tosser at the other end was leaping to false conclusions based on a pre-conceived notion that women are less capable than men in doing certain jobs. This is an indefensible attitude but it is a dying one no matter how firmly some people might cling to it. How many men these days would say "Women Shouldn't Have the Vote" or "Married Women Shouldn't Work" and not get laughed at. "Women Aren't Good at Certain Jobs" is a view that is a bit more persistent but it's on its way out no matter what a few  reprobates think.
My middle daughter decided she wanted to be a nurse when she was about 12 or 13 but when she applied to the School of Nursing, her boyfriend at the time (who up until then I had thought was OK) objected on the grounds that he didn't want to be with a girl better educated than him.
I was frankly fucking amazed than any young man could have that opinion in 2012 so I'm not debating that dumbass attitude still exists because it does but it is now a minority view and will be a dead one long before this century is half over.
As for my daughter's ex-boyfriend he got his wish anyway  he wasn't with a better educated girl within about a week of spouting that crap.


----------



## hitmouse (Mar 29, 2021)

MickiQ said:


> What do you define as a construct? I look down and I have a cock and a couple of balls


What about trans people who've had surgery?


> Because one was using a male name and one was using a female name.


Exactly. How people "read" you - the social, gendered stuff - determines how you get treated, even though it doesn't change your physical biology.


----------



## Border Reiver (Mar 29, 2021)

MickiQ said:


> What do you define as a construct? I look down and I have a cock and a couple of balls,  I was too young to remember but pretty sure I was born with them, I was present when all my children were born so I know my son was and my daughters weren't. I believe I have a son and three daughters however if you can given me a definition that makes me doubt that well I would be fascinated to read it as I am sure would they. Sorry kiddo you're really a boy my bad for being wrong all this time, Youngest would have been called Patrick if she had been a boy so I'm sure she would be thrilled if I call her that from now on.
> A



Absence or presence of a penis is a fact. Interpreting that as sign of biological sex is a construct.


----------



## co-op (Mar 29, 2021)

MickiQ said:


> My middle daughter decided she wanted to be a nurse when she was about 12 or 13 but when she applied to the School of Nursing, her boyfriend at the time (who up until then I had thought was OK) objected on the grounds that he didn't want to be with a girl better educated than him.
> I was frankly fucking amazed than any young man could have that opinion in 2012 so I'm not debating that dumbass attitude still exists because it does but it is now a minority view and will be a dead one long before this century is half over.



I wouldn't bet on that, I thought that would be true in my generation and it isn't. It's not just your daughter's ex being a jerk, it's his feeling that he is less of a man if he is not the main earner, that he is being feminised into an inferior role. To go round trumpeting this view makes you a jerk, but just to feel it and not know exactly why you feel it, or to not feel it consciously but just find that you "don't think my girlfriend should have a higher education level than me" and not even really know why you feel that - _that_ is much more common, it's massively widespread still. And it's clearly rooted in a patriarchal idea that a man's (gender) role is to earn money, a woman's is to fit in with what the man needs. Men are supposed to flash the cash in the pub, women count the pennies. When is that going to change? When will most men feel happy letting women buy them a drink or pay for a meal etc? I think we've a long way to go.


----------



## co-op (Mar 29, 2021)

hitmouse said:


> Exactly. How people "read" you - the social, gendered stuff - determines how you get treated, even though it doesn't change your physical biology.



This all leads off into its own worm-hole about "passing" and "passing privilege" and then, indirectly to giving puberty blockers to pre-pubescent children who are gender non-conforming and being told the only explanation for that is they are trans, when they _should_ be given options - including _being gender non-conforming_


----------



## 8ball (Mar 29, 2021)

co-op said:


> When will most men feel happy letting women buy them a drink or pay for a meal etc?



Turns out I was woke from the start!


----------



## MickiQ (Mar 29, 2021)

hitmouse said:


> What about trans people who've had surgery?


Then they are still male but if they want to be viewed as and treated as female then personally I'm cool with that. In fact most of the time even if they haven't had surgery it doesn't really matter does it? Names and gender pronouns are just labels and the idea of certain types of clothing being only for men/women is basically just daft. 


Border Reiver said:


> Absence or presence of a penis is a fact. Interpreting that as sign of biological sex is a construct.


0/10 Sorry but that's pathetic


----------



## Idaho (Mar 29, 2021)

8ball said:


> Turns out I was woke from the start!


I've never understood all that. If someone else is getting a round in our buying dinner, game on. Their money is always good.


----------



## hitmouse (Mar 29, 2021)

co-op said:


> I wouldn't bet on that, I thought that would be true in my generation and it isn't. It's not just your daughter's ex being a jerk, it's his feeling that he is less of a man if he is not the main earner, that he is being feminised into an inferior role. To go round trumpeting this view makes you a jerk, but just to feel it and not know exactly why you feel it, or to not feel it consciously but just find that you "don't think my girlfriend should have a higher education level than me" and not even really know why you feel that - _that_ is much more common, it's massively widespread still. And it's clearly rooted in a patriarchal idea that a man's (gender) role is to earn money, a woman's is to fit in with what the man needs. Men are supposed to flash the cash in the pub, women count the pennies. When is that going to change? When will most men feel happy letting women buy them a drink or pay for a meal etc? I think we've a long way to go.


For what it's worth, I agree with this post 100%.


co-op said:


> indirectly to giving puberty blockers to pre-pubescent children who are gender non-conforming and being told the only explanation for that is they are trans, when they _should_ be given options - including _being gender non-conforming_


I'm not convinced that happens, it's my understanding that the general shift in acceptance of trans stuff has precisely opened up more space for kids to be given options, including being GNC. If people are really going around telling kids that they must be trans, are they telling them that they have to be "binary" trans people, or do they at least give them the option of maybe being non-binary?


----------



## Border Reiver (Mar 29, 2021)

MickiQ said:


> Then they are still male but if they want to be viewed as and treated as female then personally I'm cool with that. In fact most of the time even if they haven't had surgery it doesn't really matter does it? Names and gender pronouns are just labels and the idea of certain types of clothing being only for men/women is basically just daft.
> 
> 0/10 Sorry but that's pathetic


I see you have no interest in using words correctly. Or learning new information. That makes debate rather pointless.

There is a difference between a fact and a construct. Your not understanding that will make it difficult for you to gain anything from further debate.

I will give you a specific example. Androgen Insensitivity Syndrome results in babies bring born with no penis, and with a vaginal canal. They do not develop testes but have internal gonads. They usually do not develop male pattern hirsuteness. 

Yet they have a Y chromosome.

Before we understood chromosomes they lived their lives as females. 

Absence of a penis defined their sex at birth.


----------



## Border Reiver (Mar 29, 2021)

co-op said:


> This all leads off into its own worm-hole about "passing" and "passing privilege" and then, indirectly to giving puberty blockers to pre-pubescent children who are gender non-conforming and being told the only explanation for that is they are trans, when they _should_ be given options - including _being gender non-conforming_


Why do you refer to it as a worm hole? What evidence do you have that such behaviour is not correct?


----------



## 8ball (Mar 29, 2021)

Just as a note regarding biological sex, I'd be perfectly happy for there to be more classifications, socially speaking.
We already kind of think of "natal sex", "legal sex" (what it says on your passport etc.) and "lived sex", even though we don't use those terms necessarily.

Having studied biology, I'm mostly wary of messing with accepted non-judgmental classifications.  When evolution comes into the picture, sex can appear like a bit of a puzzle at first - even with parthenogenetic females you are basically rendering a whole bunch of organisms unable to reproduce by themselves.  In this sense I'm considering sex to relate to "those individuals you can exchange genetic material with in order to produce fertile offspring" (the infertile are of tangential relevance to evolution in this case) - and those are the ones considered a different sex to you (some organisms can have more than two sexes, and producing fertile offspring means copping off with any sex other than your own).

I don't agree with the weaponised usage of biological sex definitions, and I don't think any other definitions need be seen as "lesser".  We know  the history of how marriage came about but most of us don't view gay marriage as a lesser thing.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Mar 29, 2021)

Border Reiver said:


> Absence or presence of a penis is a fact. Interpreting that as sign of biological sex is a construct.


Not really. It might conceivably turn out to be wrong, but we're back to reproductive sex again (and no definition of biological sex can avoid reproduction). So if it turns out that the baby with a penis isn't actually developing to reproduce in the 'male' way, it may be that the interpretation of the presence of a penis was wrong, but generally speaking, 'having a penis' is quite a reliable indicator, and sadly if the interpretation is wrong, that's an indication of a developmental disorder. 

This is where I do have an issue with some of the language that is coming in for these things - in this instance, 'assigned male/female at birth'. What exactly are we talking about there if not sex? But the word 'assign' has connotations of an active role on the part of the assigner, as if it could have been done differently. So later, you can say 'I was assigned male/female at birth, but I'm not really'. I think that misunderstands what is done at birth tbh, and in many instances, it goes as far as suggesting that it was the gender that was being assigned, or as co-op has been saying, that _sex is the construct_ and _gender the essential to being_, so you can only guess at the essential bit at birth as it only comes out much later.

There is a great deal of muddle over the difference between sex and gender - increasingly so, it seems to me, as I regularly see the word 'gender' used now when what is actually meant is 'sex'. I suspect that people don't really like thinking so hard about it each time so just plump for a default choice, which used to be 'sex' and is now 'gender'. But I see people getting it wrong who really shouldn't be getting it wrong, including science writers. We're in danger here of replacing the old obnoxious, and mostly wrong, sex essentialism with an equally objectionable, and wrong, gender essentialism.


----------



## Knotted (Mar 29, 2021)

co-op said:


> This all leads off into its own worm-hole about "passing" and "passing privilege" and then, indirectly to giving puberty blockers to pre-pubescent children who are gender non-conforming and being told the only explanation for that is they are trans, when they _should_ be given options - including _being gender non-conforming_



Pre-pubescent children are being denied the option to NOT have puberty blockers? Is that really true? Is this from the Abigail Shrier book?

This is why I don't think a lot of this has nothing to do with feminism. It's just fear mongering.


----------



## co-op (Mar 29, 2021)

hitmouse said:


> I'm not convinced that happens, it's my understanding that the general shift in acceptance of trans stuff has precisely opened up more space for kids to be given options, including being GNC. If people are really going around telling kids that they must be trans, are they telling them that they have to be "binary" trans people, or do they at least give them the option of maybe being non-binary?



The options within being trans presumably include being non-binary trans (I assume). But when trans activists condemn "conversion therapy" for young (potentially) trans people what they mean is offering anything except "affirmation" if a person has self-diagnosed themselves as trans, in other words possibilities such as being gay, being gnc, suffering from body dysphoria due to other reasons are expressly ignored. If a therapist were to try and address those issues or even find out if they exist, that is "conversion therapy" and transphobic. This seems utterly wrong to me. 

It also explains why detransitioners are so controversial and take so much abuse from TRAs. They are a standing criticism of the idea that you simply "know" when you are trans, because they "knew" and then they changed their mind. There will be legal actions over this - young people were stuck on hormones and given surgery with lifelong consequences without any real discussion as to the cause of their psychological pain.


----------



## 8ball (Mar 29, 2021)

co-op said:


> The options within being trans presumably include being non-binary trans (I assume).



Which doesn't make much sense when you break it down.  If not conforming to social gender norms was less of an issue, I think we might not have needed so many classifications in the first place.


----------



## Border Reiver (Mar 29, 2021)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Not really. It might conceivably turn out to be wrong, but we're back to reproductive sex again (and no definition of biological sex can avoid reproduction). So if it turns out that the baby with a penis isn't actually developing to reproduce in the 'male' way, it may be that the interpretation of the presence of a penis was wrong, but generally speaking, 'having a penis' is quite a reliable indicator, and sadly if the interpretation is wrong, that's an indication of a developmental disorder.
> 
> This is where I do have an issue with some of the language that is coming in for these things - in this instance, 'assigned male/female at birth'. What exactly are we talking about there if not sex? But the word 'assign' has connotations of an active role on the part of the assigner, as if it could have been done differently. So later, you can say 'I was assigned male/female at birth, but I'm not really'. I think that misunderstands what is done at birth tbh, and in many instances, it goes as far as suggesting that it was the gender that was being assigned, or as co-op has been saying, that _sex is the construct_ and _gender the essential to being_, so you can only guess at the essential bit at birth as it only comes out much later.
> 
> There is a great deal of muddle over the difference between sex and gender - increasingly so, it seems to me, as I regularly see the word 'gender' used now when what is actually meant is 'sex'. I suspect that people don't really like thinking so hard about it each time so just plump for a default choice, which used to be 'sex' and is now 'gender'. But I see people getting it wrong who really shouldn't be getting it wrong, including science writers.


You are ignoring history where external genitalia or their absence was the only signifier of sex at birth. 

You are also ignoring the biology of sex that stands apart from the politics. Sex had multiple signifiers. Your concentration on reproductive ability is not the whole story.


----------



## co-op (Mar 29, 2021)

Knotted said:


> Pre-pubescent children are being denied the option to NOT have puberty blockers? Is that really true? Is this from the Abigail Shrier book?
> 
> This is why I don't think a lot of this has nothing to do with feminism. It's just fear mongering.



I wasn't clear, pre-pubescent children definitely have the option of not taking puberty blockers. My point was whether you pass or don't pass (which came out of the conversation about being "seen as" one sex or the other) is a lot to do with puberty for transwomen. Avoiding it makes passing much more likely, which - arguably therefore makes this the right course of action for trans children. But can there really be such a thing as a transchild? How can a child make decisions like this? How can parents when they are bombarded with messages telling them they are transphobic if they do anything except affirm and puberty block?


----------



## Border Reiver (Mar 29, 2021)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Not really. It might conceivably turn out to be wrong, but we're back to reproductive sex again (and no definition of biological sex can avoid reproduction). So if it turns out that the baby with a penis isn't actually developing to reproduce in the 'male' way, it may be that the interpretation of the presence of a penis was wrong, but generally speaking, 'having a penis' is quite a reliable indicator, and sadly if the interpretation is wrong, that's an indication of a developmental disorder.
> 
> This is where I do have an issue with some of the language that is coming in for these things - in this instance, 'assigned male/female at birth'. What exactly are we talking about there if not sex? But the word 'assign' has connotations of an active role on the part of the assigner, as if it could have been done differently. So later, you can say 'I was assigned male/female at birth, but I'm not really'. I think that misunderstands what is done at birth tbh, and in many instances, it goes as far as suggesting that it was the gender that was being assigned, or as co-op has been saying, that _sex is the construct_ and _gender the essential to being_, so you can only guess at the essential bit at birth as it only comes out much later.
> 
> There is a great deal of muddle over the difference between sex and gender - increasingly so, it seems to me, as I regularly see the word 'gender' used now when what is actually meant is 'sex'. I suspect that people don't really like thinking so hard about it each time so just plump for a default choice, which used to be 'sex' and is now 'gender'. But I see people getting it wrong who really shouldn't be getting it wrong, including science writers. We're in danger here of replacing the old obnoxious, and mostly wrong, sex essentialism with an equally objectionable, and wrong, gender essentialism.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Mar 29, 2021)

Border Reiver said:


> You are ignoring history where external genitalia or their absence was the only signifier of sex at birth.
> 
> You are also ignoring the biology of sex that stands apart from the politics. Sex had multiple signifiers. Your concentration on reproductive ability is not the whole story.


Sex may have multiple signifiers, but it has one function. It has evolved for the purpose of reproduction, and its definition depends on reproduction. It seems odd to me that people can see this quite clearly for pretty much any organism other than humans.


----------



## Border Reiver (Mar 29, 2021)

co-op said:


> I wasn't clear, pre-pubescent children definitely have the option of not taking puberty blockers. My point was whether you pass or don't pass (which came out of the conversation about being "seen as" one sex or the other) is a lot to do with puberty for transwomen. Avoiding it makes passing much more likely, which - arguably therefore makes this the right course of action for trans children. But can there really be such a thing as a transchild? How can a child make decisions like this? How can parents when they are bombarded with messages telling them they are transphobic if they do anything except affirm and puberty block?


The law on prescribing puberty blockers has been clarified by a case heard last week. Parents retain the legal right to agree to puberty blockers being given to their child. The decision on child consent is currently being appealed and I have every expectation that the law will return to Gillick Competence for children making their own decision.


----------



## Knotted (Mar 29, 2021)

co-op said:


> I wasn't clear, pre-pubescent children definitely have the option of not taking puberty blockers. My point was whether you pass or don't pass (which came out of the conversation about being "seen as" one sex or the other) is a lot to do with puberty for transwomen. Avoiding it makes passing much more likely, which - arguably therefore makes this the right course of action for trans children. But can there really be such a thing as a transchild? How can a child make decisions like this? How can parents when they are bombarded with messages telling them they are transphobic if they do anything except affirm and puberty block?



Are they really being bombarded with messages telling them they are transphobic? Is this coming from health care professionals, from schools?


----------



## Border Reiver (Mar 29, 2021)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Sex may have multiple signifiers, but it has one function. It has evolved for the purpose of reproduction, and its definition depends on reproduction. It seems odd to me that people can see this quite clearly for pretty much any organism other than humans.


Perhaps you could link to a scientific source that supports your contention that reproductive ability is the sole signifier of "sex".


----------



## SpackleFrog (Mar 29, 2021)

co-op said:


> You know there are trans people who agree with those statements?



No, they don't. No one claims you can change sex. You tedious prick.


----------



## Border Reiver (Mar 29, 2021)

co-op said:


> I wasn't clear, pre-pubescent children definitely have the option of not taking puberty blockers. My point was whether you pass or don't pass (which came out of the conversation about being "seen as" one sex or the other) is a lot to do with puberty for transwomen. Avoiding it makes passing much more likely, which - arguably therefore makes this the right course of action for trans children. But can there really be such a thing as a transchild? How can a child make decisions like this? How can parents when they are bombarded with messages telling them they are transphobic if they do anything except affirm and puberty block?


The law on children's consent to medical treatment was very clear until the recent court case (Gillick Competence). The law is yet to be clarified at appeal.


----------



## co-op (Mar 29, 2021)

Knotted said:


> Are they really being bombarded with messages telling them they are transphobic? Is this coming from health care professionals, from schools?



There is a big Stonewall campaign under way right now to ban "conversion therapy" ie to allow gender confused, gender non-conforming, gay young people to discuss the reasons why they feel they might be trans. The only acceptable course of action is "affirmation", anything else is "conversion therapy". This puts a huge amount of pressure on parents of very distressed children. But my wording "being bombarded with messages" is probably not catching the actual quality of the pressure that is being applied.

Any organisation or school that has become a Stonewall Diversity Champion will be absolutely pushed into supporting this line - and that could be quite a "bombardment" imo but I can't vouch for that our of personal experience.


----------



## SpackleFrog (Mar 29, 2021)

co-op said:


> I think you'd find little to object to in their politics before and yes my jaw was on the floor when she told me. It is blowing my mind what this topic is doing to the left.



You wouldn't have a clue what dodgy politics look like cos you're a dodgy cunt


----------



## Border Reiver (Mar 29, 2021)

co-op said:


> There is a big Stonewall campaign under way right now to ban "conversion therapy" ie to allow gender confused, gender non-conforming, gay young people to discuss the reasons why they feel they might be trans. The only acceptable course of action is "affirmation", anything else is "conversion therapy". This puts a huge amount of pressure on parents of very distressed children. But my wording "being bombarded with messages" is probably not catching the actual quality of the pressure that is being applied.
> 
> Any organisation or school that has become a Stonewall Diversity Champion will be absolutely pushed into supporting this line - and that could be quite a "bombardment" imo but I can't vouch for that our of personal experience.


"Conversion Therapy" has nothing to do with biological sex or gender identification. It applies only to sexual attraction.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Mar 29, 2021)

Border Reiver said:


> Perhaps you could link to a scientific source that supports your contention that reproductive ability is the sole signifier of "sex".


Maybe you could give me a definition of sex that doesn't centre on reproduction. Meanwhile, you could also go back and reread the post you're replying to. You don't seem to have read it very closely. 

It's always necessary to be careful about definitions in biology lest notions of non-Darwinian design creep in, but biological sex has been selected because sexual reproduction has been a successful strategy (exactly how and why that is is still up for debate) - specifically, two individuals mixing up their genes (and usually halving them but not always) then combining the two halves to produce a new individual. Sexual reproduction has a very specific definition, even if the ways in which it happens may vary hugely, and sexual reproduction within different groups of organisms can be even more closely defined. 

And now I'm off this line of enquiry. It's bonkers that this level of detail ends up needing to be defined.


----------



## co-op (Mar 29, 2021)

Border Reiver said:


> "Conversion Therapy" has nothing to do with biological sex or gender identification. It applies only to sexual attraction.



You are not up to speed. It is now being used to describe any non-affirmatory medical or therapeutic response to children presenting as trans.


----------



## SpackleFrog (Mar 29, 2021)

co-op said:


> There is a big Stonewall campaign under way right now to ban "conversion therapy" ie to allow gender confused, gender non-conforming, gay young people to discuss the reasons why they feel they might be trans. The only acceptable course of action is "affirmation", anything else is "conversion therapy". This puts a huge amount of pressure on parents of very distressed children. But my wording "being bombarded with messages" is probably not catching the actual quality of the pressure that is being applied.
> 
> Any organisation or school that has become a Stonewall Diversity Champion will be absolutely pushed into supporting this line - and that could be quite a "bombardment" imo but I can't vouch for that our of personal experience.



Thin end of the wedge isn't it. He says he just doesn't want anyone to recognise trans people to exist but actually he wants gays and lesbians to undergo conversion therapy so they can live how he thinks they should.


----------



## co-op (Mar 29, 2021)

SpackleFrog said:


> Thin end of the wedge isn't it. He says he just doesn't want anyone to recognise trans people to exist but actually he wants gays and lesbians to undergo conversion therapy so they can live how he thinks they should.



This is literally the opposite of what I want or what I think I've said, apologies if that wasn't clear.


----------



## Knotted (Mar 29, 2021)

co-op said:


> There is a big Stonewall campaign under way right now to ban "conversion therapy" ie to allow gender confused, gender non-conforming, gay young people to discuss the reasons why they feel they might be trans. The only acceptable course of action is "affirmation", anything else is "conversion therapy". This puts a huge amount of pressure on parents of very distressed children. But my wording "being bombarded with messages" is probably not catching the actual quality of the pressure that is being applied.
> 
> Any organisation or school that has become a Stonewall Diversity Champion will be absolutely pushed into supporting this line - and that could be quite a "bombardment" imo but I can't vouch for that our of personal experience.



I think the key thing with any therapy or consultation of any kind is to believe the patient even if they're children. And puberty blockers are there to delay any further decision. And as for passing, I would suggest that most people, trans or not want to pass.

Talking very generally, a lot of parents will deny that their children have various issues. It could be to do with being gay or neuro-nontypical or whatever. Mum and dad don't always know best. And I would suggest that this is the problem with these conversion therapists, they don't listen to the child, they listen to mum and dad. I don't think that it's a coincidence that mumsnet is a hot bed for "gender critical" opinion forming.


----------



## Border Reiver (Mar 29, 2021)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Maybe you could give me a definition of sex that doesn't centre on reproduction. Meanwhile, you could also go back and reread the post you're replying to. You don't seem to have read it very closely.
> 
> It's always necessary to be careful about definitions in biology lest notions of non-Darwinian design creep in, but biological sex has been selected because sexual reproduction has been a successful strategy (exactly how and why that is is still up for debate) - specifically, two individuals mixing up their genes (and usually halving them but not always) then combining the two halves to produce a new individual. Sexual reproduction has a very specific definition, even if the ways in which it happens may vary hugely, and sexual reproduction within different groups of organisms can be even more closely defined.
> 
> And now I'm off this line of enquiry. It's bonkers that this level of detail ends up needing to be defined.



So you cannot back up your opinion with evidence. You are just ignoring scientific fact that "sex" has mutiple signifiers.


----------



## Shechemite (Mar 29, 2021)

Knotted said:


> I think the key thing with any therapy or consultation of any kind is to believe the patient even if they're children.



Is it?


----------



## Athos (Mar 29, 2021)

Border Reiver said:


> So you cannot back up your opinion with evidence. You are just ignoring scientific fact that "sex" has mutiple signifiers.



Did you not see this?



littlebabyjesus said:


> Sex may have multiple signifiers, but it has one function.


----------



## Shechemite (Mar 29, 2021)

What’s neuro-nontypical?


----------



## Border Reiver (Mar 29, 2021)

co-op said:


> You are not up to speed. It is now being used to describe any non-affirmatory medical or therapeutic response to children presenting as trans.


Then it is being misused. Perhaps you can offer some examples of your claimed usages. Then we can assess how much authority that usage has.


----------



## Border Reiver (Mar 29, 2021)

MadeInBedlam said:


> Is it?


It is a key definition of therapy that the client has the right to their own experiences.


----------



## Knotted (Mar 29, 2021)

MadeInBedlam said:


> Is it?



I would be interested in your opinion on this.


----------



## LDC (Mar 29, 2021)

MadeInBedlam said:


> Is it?



Yeah, I also think that's very suspect idea. There's plenty that could be drawn out about the subtleties of what believing them means exactly, but surely if someone comes to a medical professional for advice and/or a diagnosis it's a dynamic (especially if it's for therapy) to discover what's going on for them, rather than just sitting there accepting everything they say as fact.


----------



## Knotted (Mar 29, 2021)

MadeInBedlam said:


> What’s neuro-nontypical?



Autism spectrum disorder, ADHD, that sort of thing. Just short hand in this instance.


----------



## LDC (Mar 29, 2021)

Border Reiver said:


> It is a key definition of therapy that the client has the right to their own experiences.



Nobody would deny their experiences, nor is anyone suggesting that, but the interpretation of them and the impact of them could be discussed.


----------



## Border Reiver (Mar 29, 2021)

Athos said:


> Did you not see this?


Function does not define anything completely. It is merely one aspect of meaning.


----------



## iveivan (Mar 29, 2021)

I don’t understand what any of this has to do with feminism. Can someone explain?


----------



## Border Reiver (Mar 29, 2021)

LynnDoyleCooper said:


> Nobody would deny their experiences, nor is anyone suggesting that, but the interpretation of them and the impact of on them could be discussed.


A person is the only witness to their own cognitions and emotions.


----------



## bimble (Mar 29, 2021)

Border Reiver said:


> It is a key definition of therapy that the client has the right to their own experiences.


eh? So if I say I’m fat then no matter whether or not I’ve come to you for help with my anorexia you shouldnt challenge my experience of myself as fat. Ok.


----------



## belboid (Mar 29, 2021)

co-op said:


> ut when trans activists condemn "conversion therapy" for young (potentially) trans people what they mean is offering anything except "affirmation" if a person has self-diagnosed themselves as trans, in other words possibilities such as being gay, being gnc, suffering from body dysphoria due to other reasons are expressly ignored. If a therapist were to try and address those issues or even find out if they exist, that is "conversion therapy" and transphobic. This seems utterly wrong to me.


It is wrong, but, handily, its also a load of made up tosh.  I'm sure you can find one person on twitter arguing something like that, but you can find one person on twitter arguing anything. Overwhelmingly, trans groups and activists support any kind of support that is non-judgemental and says that there is nothing wrong with being trans.

Everyone needs help and support in coming to terms with 'who they are' in some way, sadly, many of the 'gender critical' feminists oppose _any _support in schools for trans people, they have argued that it isn't safe and/or hasn't been tested in any way, so shouldn't happen (thus ensuring that new ideas will never be tested). Its just another insurmountable objection put forward disingenuously.


----------



## Border Reiver (Mar 29, 2021)

bimble said:


> eh? So if I say I’m fat then no matter whether or not I’ve come to you for help with my anorexia you shouldnt challenge my experience of myself as fat. Ok.


Cognition and emotion are separate from reality.


----------



## bimble (Mar 29, 2021)

Border Reiver said:


> Cognition and emotion are separate from reality.


Deep.


----------



## Knotted (Mar 29, 2021)

LynnDoyleCooper said:


> Nobody would deny their experiences, nor is anyone suggesting that, but the interpretation of them and the impact of them could be discussed.



As we're talking conversion therapy, I think the relevant question here is do you try to condition the child to act their assigned gender. In the words of Kenneth Zucker, "take away the Barbie".

Feminists and trans gender activists should be on the same side on this one.


----------



## LDC (Mar 29, 2021)

Border Reiver said:


> A person is the only witness to their own cognitions and emotions.



Your posting style really makes you seem like an arrogant dick btw, especially since you've turned up here today and are just posting on this thread.


----------



## Border Reiver (Mar 29, 2021)

bimble said:


> Deep.


Not really. Basic.


----------



## belboid (Mar 29, 2021)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Sex may have multiple signifiers, but it has one function.


blimey, we are going back to the dark ages.  Gay sex is functionless then? Sex with condoms on is 'functionless'? What a thoroughly reactionary argument.


----------



## Shechemite (Mar 29, 2021)

Knotted said:


> Autism spectrum disorder, ADHD, that sort of thing. Just short hand in this instance.



parents tend to be the one’s seeking such a dx for their kids, and health care/education professionals tend to be more skeptical IME.

This would be the reverse of what happens with a trans dx


----------



## bimble (Mar 29, 2021)

These trans ‘debates’ seem to get stupider and stupider with every iteration, I think it’s because the only people left are the ones standing on soapboxes in their pants.


----------



## Border Reiver (Mar 29, 2021)

LynnDoyleCooper said:


> Your posting style really makes you seem like an arrogant dick btw, especially since you've turned up here today and are just posting on this thread.


Being new here does not mean being ill educated.

I tend to ignore posters who resort to abuse.


----------



## LDC (Mar 29, 2021)

Sticking this Big Lebowski style philosopher on ignore.


----------



## Shechemite (Mar 29, 2021)

Border Reiver said:


> It is a key definition of therapy that the client has the right to their own experiences.



ive never come across any NHS professional that has (rightly or wrongly) simply affirmed a patients experience and not (at the very least) give the patient their own perspective


----------



## Knotted (Mar 29, 2021)

MadeInBedlam said:


> parents tend to be the one’s seeking such a dx for their kids, and health care/education professionals tend to be more skeptical IME.
> 
> This would be the reverse of what happens with a trans dx



Usually, yes. However, there's a very definite and very obnoxious denialist movement.


----------



## Border Reiver (Mar 29, 2021)

MadeInBedlam said:


> ive never come across any NHS professional that has (rightly or wrongly) simply affirmed a patients experience and not (at the very least) give the patient their own perspective


Acceptance is not affirmation.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Mar 29, 2021)

Border Reiver said:


> Cognition and emotion are separate from reality.


No, I don't accept that. They are a part of reality. You're right of course that conscious experience, or mind, can only be accessed directly by the individual, but even that doesn't place it as separate from reality. wrt gender dysphoria, there is a particular kind of disconnect and conflict between the body and the mind. How therapists should best approach that is a massive question of course, but I would say that it is one that doesn't lend itself well to dogmatically held preconceptions.


----------



## Border Reiver (Mar 29, 2021)

LynnDoyleCooper said:


> Sticking this Big Lebowski style philosopher on ignore.


I can manage without people whose debating style is based on ad hominem and abuse.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Mar 29, 2021)

belboid said:


> blimey, we are going back to the dark ages.  Gay sex is functionless then? Sex with condoms on is 'functionless'? What a thoroughly reactionary argument.


I was talking about the existence of the category biological sex there.

You misunderstood. Maybe I was unclear. 

Of course the act of sexual intercourse can have many functions.


----------



## Border Reiver (Mar 29, 2021)

littlebabyjesus said:


> No, I don't accept that. They are a part of reality. You're right of course that conscious experience, or mind, can only be accessed directly by the individual, but even that doesn't place it as separate from reality. wrt gender dysphoria, there is a particular kind of disconnect and conflict between the body and the mind. How therapists should best approach that is a massive question of course, but I would say that it is one that doesn't lend itself well to dogmatically held preconceptions.


A person's experience is incorrigible.


----------



## belboid (Mar 29, 2021)

littlebabyjesus said:


> I was talking about the existence of the category biological sex there.
> 
> You misunderstood. Maybe I was unclear.
> 
> Of course the act of sexual intercourse can have many functions.


That doesn't really help you, in fact its even worse. Unless you simply want to reduce all of humanity to being a machine for reproduction


----------



## Sue (Mar 29, 2021)

LynnDoyleCooper said:


> Your posting style really makes you seem like an arrogant dick btw, especially since you've *turned up here today* and are just posting on this thread.


Aye well, I did wonder...


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Mar 29, 2021)

belboid said:


> That doesn't really help you, in fact its even worse. Unless you simply want to reduce all of humanity to being a machine for reproduction


Nah, this post just shows that you weren't following that line of argument. Border Reiver was making some very specific claims wrt the existence of sex (the biology, not the act). It's a problem of language, I admit - the word 'sex' is used in various different ways. 

You can just say 'oh soz got it wrong'.


----------



## Athos (Mar 29, 2021)

Border Reiver said:


> Function does not define anything completely. It is merely one aspect of meaning.



He didn't claim that it did. And he explicitly recognised sex has many signifiers.


----------



## belboid (Mar 29, 2021)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Nah, this post just shows that you weren't following that line of argument. Border Reiver was making some very specific claims wrt the existence of sex (the biology, not the act). It's a problem of language, I admit - the word 'sex' is used in various different ways.
> 
> You can just say 'oh soz got it wrong'.


I could, but I didnt    I think its another crude, reductionist, statement. If we want to be biologically precise, the 'sex chromosomes' all have more than one 'function'


----------



## iveivan (Mar 29, 2021)

iveivan said:


> I don’t understand what any of this has to do with feminism. Can someone explain?


Guess not


----------



## Border Reiver (Mar 29, 2021)

Athos said:


> He didn't claim that it did. And he explicitly recognised sex has many signifiers.


But he claimed that function was the main signifier, without any backing other than his opinion. I merely asked him for evidence to support his opinion that function was the main factor.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Mar 29, 2021)

belboid said:


> I could, but I didnt    I think its another crude, reductionist, statement. If we want to be biologically precise, the 'sex chromosomes' all have more than one 'function'


Nah, see I wasn't talking about chromosomes, haven't mentioned them once. Criticise my posts on this if you like, but do me the courtesy of reading them first.


----------



## Athos (Mar 29, 2021)

Border Reiver said:


> But he claimed that function was the main signifier, without any backing other than his opinion. I merely asked him for evidence to support his opinion that function was the main factor.


Where did he claim that?


----------



## Border Reiver (Mar 29, 2021)

iveivan said:


> Guess not


"What is woman?". "Is a trans woman a woman?"


----------



## bimble (Mar 29, 2021)

iveivan said:


> Guess not


This is why I’ve stopped, reading engaging with any of it, because I think it’s a fucking tragedy how much energy has gone into this for years, to the exclusion of all else, from people who (sincerely) see themselves as doing feminism. To the exclusion of all else , that’s an important bit, I’m not saying it’s un-feminist to do this argument just not my best use of my limited resources of energy & anger.


----------



## Knotted (Mar 29, 2021)

iveivan said:


> Guess not



I don't think this pedantic biology even has anything to do with trans gender issues.

Wicker Man anybody?


----------



## belboid (Mar 29, 2021)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Nah, see I wasn't talking about chromosomes, haven't mentioned them once. Criticise my posts on this if you like, but do me the courtesy of reading them first.



You can just say 'oh soz got it wrong'.


----------



## hitmouse (Mar 29, 2021)

littlebabyjesus said:


> This is where I do have an issue with some of the language that is coming in for these things - in this instance, 'assigned male/female at birth'. What exactly are we talking about there if not sex? But the word 'assign' has connotations of an active role on the part of the assigner, as if it could have been done differently. So later, you can say 'I was assigned male/female at birth, but I'm not really'. I think that misunderstands what is done at birth tbh, and in many instances, it goes as far as suggesting that it was the gender that was being assigned, or as co-op has been saying, that _sex is the construct_ and _gender the essential to being_, so you can only guess at the essential bit at birth as it only comes out much later.


I think it is precisely the gender that's assigned at birth. They tick a box on your form and the way that you're treated throughout your childhood depends on what box is ticked, in all sorts of ways. And of course it absolutely could be done differently, we could have a society that isn't based around these roles, or defines these roles differently.


----------



## co-op (Mar 29, 2021)

Knotted said:


> As we're talking conversion therapy, I think the relevant question here is do you try to condition the child to act their assigned gender. In the words of Kenneth Zucker, "take away the Barbie".
> 
> *F*eminists and trans gender activists should be on the same side on this one.


 
Conversion therapy historically was trying to change a child's sexuality from gay to straight, it didn't have anything to do with gender role per se. What is happening now is that a section of the TRA world is saying that if a child/young person  is presenting saying "I must be trans because I always preferred playing with boys toys and I am attracted to women" that if you say "are you sure you aren't just a GNC lesbian?" then you are indulging in conversion therapy. This is why so many gay people see aspects of trans ideology as homophobic. Instead of being happily gay, a person is supposed to switch to the "correct" sex to justify their sexual and behavioural preferences, this is really deeply heteronormative and reactionary. And, yes "not all trans people" but this is where Stonewall is right now.


----------



## iveivan (Mar 29, 2021)

Border Reiver said:


> "What is woman?". "Is a trans woman a woman?"


Why does that impact feminism? If trans women are or are not women does that negate female oppression?


----------



## Border Reiver (Mar 29, 2021)

hitmouse said:


> I think it is precisely the gender that's assigned at birth. They tick a box on your form and the way that you're treated throughout your childhood depends on what box is ticked, in all sorts of ways. And of course it absolutely could be done differently, we could have a society that isn't based around these roles, or defines these roles differently.


Gender used to be decided at birth by external genitalia. More recently a blood test confirms or disconfirms that.


----------



## 8ball (Mar 29, 2021)

Border Reiver said:


> A person's experience is incorrigible.



Nonsense.  A person's experience is always filtered through the lens of the dominant paradigms of the time.


----------



## belboid (Mar 29, 2021)

co-op said:


> Conversion therapy historically was trying to change a child's sexuality from gay to straight, it didn't have anything to do with gender role per se. What is happening now is that a section of the TRA world is saying that if a child/young person  is presenting saying "I must be trans because I always preferred playing with boys toys and I am attracted to women" that if you say "are you sure you aren't just a GNC lesbian?" then you are indulging in conversion therapy. This is why so many gay people see aspects of trans ideology as homophobic. Instead of being happily gay, a person is supposed to switch to the "correct" sex to justify their sexual and behavioural preferences, this is really deeply heteronormative and reactionary. And, yes "not all trans people" but this is where Stonewall is right now.


Bull and indeed shit.


----------



## Border Reiver (Mar 29, 2021)

iveivan said:


> Why does that impact feminism? If trans women are or are not women does that negate female oppression?


It can be used to suggest that some women should not be defended as women.


----------



## Raheem (Mar 29, 2021)

Border Reiver said:


> A person's experience is incorrigible.





8ball said:


> Nonsense.  A person's experience is always filtered through the lens of the dominant paradigms of the time.


Both of these statements can be true at the same time.


----------



## iveivan (Mar 29, 2021)

co-op said:


> Conversion therapy historically was trying to change a child's sexuality from gay to straight, it didn't have anything to do with gender role per se. What is happening now is that a section of the TRA world is saying that if a child/young person  is presenting saying "I must be trans because I always preferred playing with boys toys and I am attracted to women" that if you say "are you sure you aren't just a GNC lesbian?" then you are indulging in conversion therapy. This is why so many gay people see aspects of trans ideology as homophobic. Instead of being happily gay, a person is supposed to switch to the "correct" sex to justify their sexual and behavioural preferences, this is really deeply heteronormative and reactionary. And, yes "not all trans people" but this is where Stonewall is right now.


Talking to someone about their gender dysphoria is not conversion therapy.


----------



## Border Reiver (Mar 29, 2021)

8ball said:


> Nonsense.  A person's experience is always filtered through the lens of the dominant paradigms of the time.


Incorrigible means "cannot be denied by other people". Experience is as it is experienced and its quality is not debatable. If someone says I experience "X" there is no way that that can be disproved.


----------



## 8ball (Mar 29, 2021)

Raheem said:


> Both of these statements can be true at the same time.



Depends a bit on how "incorrigible" was being used.  A person's reflection on their experiences, and subsequent experience of them, is culturally malleable, though.


----------



## iveivan (Mar 29, 2021)

Border Reiver said:


> It can be used to suggest that some women should not be defended as women.


What can be used? Feminism?

Makes zero sense to me. Men and women should be equal but let’s class trans people as separate?


----------



## Shechemite (Mar 29, 2021)

is disagreeing on the meaning and cause of a persons dysphoria - that is to do with eg suffering trauma, or being autistic, or struggling with adolescence, or struggling with a fucked up society - is that ‘conversion therapy’?


----------



## 8ball (Mar 29, 2021)

Border Reiver said:


> Incorrigible means "cannot be denied by other people".



A dictionary might have helped you out here.


----------



## Knotted (Mar 29, 2021)

co-op said:


> Conversion therapy historically was trying to change a child's sexuality from gay to straight, it didn't have anything to do with gender role per se. What is happening now is that a section of the TRA world is saying that if a child/young person  is presenting saying "I must be trans because I always preferred playing with boys toys and I am attracted to women" that if you say "are you sure you aren't just a GNC lesbian?" then you are indulging in conversion therapy. This is why so many gay people see aspects of trans ideology as homophobic. Instead of being happily gay, a person is supposed to switch to the "correct" sex to justify their sexual and behavioural preferences, this is really deeply heteronormative and reactionary. And, yes "not all trans people" but this is where Stonewall is right now.



Asking a child a question is not therapy. I suspect that objections to "conversion therapy" (with or without the scare quotes) is at least an objection to some form of therapy (maybe it isn't?). I feel that this is a characterisation of some things that are being said. Can you pin down a statement from eg. Stonewall about "conversion therapy" that you find objectionable?


----------



## Border Reiver (Mar 29, 2021)

8ball said:


> A dictionary might have helped you out here.


You understanding the meaning of "incorrigible" when used about epistemology might have helped you.


----------



## co-op (Mar 29, 2021)

iveivan said:


> Talking to someone about their gender dysphoria is not conversion therapy.



It depends doesn't it? Who is talking to who, when, why with what motive. But in my view, especially with young people it is part of a proper therapeutic response to not simply "affirm" the self-diagnosis of being trans. But this is being called conversion therapy by Stonewall now. The reality is that it has been decades since there was any serious attempt at converting gay people by medical or therapeutic practioners in the UK. Of course there probably still are - crackpot religious converters trying it in the US, but here in the UK there is an absolute non-problem with conversion therapy and gay people now. Tons and tons of really shitty and hostile social pressure & contempt of course but absolutely no actual "conversion therapy".

So why has Stonewall launched this great campaign now? Because they've done what they always do now and smooshed "gender identity" in with "sexuality" and are trying to prevent any approach to young people presenting self-diagnosed as Trans except "affirmation". The _real_ conversion therapy ironically is turning gay people straight by transing them, and the charge is being led by Stonewall. It's fecking surreal.


----------



## Border Reiver (Mar 29, 2021)

8ball said:


> A dictionary might have helped you out here.


An understanding of the usage of "incorrigible" in epistemology might have helped you appear better informed.






						Incorrigibility - Wikipedia
					






					en.wikipedia.org


----------



## Athos (Mar 29, 2021)

co-op said:


> It depends doesn't it? Who is talking to who, when, why with what motive. But in my view, especially with young people it is part of a proper therapeutic response to not simply "affirm" the self-diagnosis of being trans. But this is being called conversion therapy by Stonewall now. The reality is that it has been decades since there was any serious attempt at converting gay people by medical or therapeutic practioners in the UK. Of course there probably still are - crackpot religious converters trying it in the US, but here in the UK there is an absolute non-problem with conversion therapy and gay people now. Tons and tons of really shitty and hostile social pressure & contempt of course but absolutely no actual "conversion therapy".
> 
> So why has Stonewall launched this great campaign now? Because they've done what they always do now and smooshed "gender identity" in with "sexuality" and are trying to prevent any approach to young people presenting self-diagnosed as Trans except "affirmation". The _real_ conversion therapy ironically is turning gay people straight by transing them, and the charge is being led by Stonewall. It's fecking surreal.



Do you have any links which show that Stonewall is characterising all non-affirming approaches as conversion therapy?


----------



## 8ball (Mar 29, 2021)

Border Reiver said:


> An understanding of the usage of "incorrigible" in epistemology might have helped you appear better informed.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## Edie (Mar 29, 2021)

I am disappointed that other people don’t wanna discuss how the left have created this shit show, and instead wanna discuss yet again whether trans women are actual women.

Because I’ve come to the conclusion that who cares anyway. They deserve to be treated with respect and advocated for, and women deserve sex-based protection, and that’s just the end of it for me. So I’m out.


----------



## smmudge (Mar 29, 2021)

co-op said:


> This is why so many gay people see aspects of trans ideology as homophobic. Instead of being happily gay, a person is supposed to switch to the "correct" sex to justify their sexual and behavioural preferences, this is really deeply heteronormative and reactionary. And, yes "not all trans people" but this is where Stonewall is right now.



And also, so many gay people wish that you wouldn't try to talk on behalf of them, or presume you know what they see. Thank you.


----------



## SpackleFrog (Mar 29, 2021)

co-op said:


> Conversion therapy historically was trying to change a child's sexuality from gay to straight, it didn't have anything to do with gender role per se. What is happening now is that a section of the TRA world is saying that if a child/young person  is presenting saying "I must be trans because I always preferred playing with boys toys and I am attracted to women" that if you say "are you sure you aren't just a GNC lesbian?" then you are indulging in conversion therapy. This is why so many gay people see aspects of trans ideology as homophobic. Instead of being happily gay, a person is supposed to switch to the "correct" sex to justify their sexual and behavioural preferences, this is really deeply heteronormative and reactionary. And, yes "not all trans people" but this is where Stonewall is right now.



Claiming someone said something on twitter so you can bore us to do death about how you don't accept trans women are women and undermine campaigns against conversion therapy. Fuck me what a world.


----------



## co-op (Mar 29, 2021)

Knotted said:


> Asking a child a question is not therapy. I suspect that objections to "conversion therapy" (with or without the scare quotes) is at least an objection to some form of therapy (maybe it isn't?). I feel that this is a characterisation of some things that are being said. Can you pin down a statement from eg. Stonewall about "conversion therapy" that you find objectionable?



Rather than Stonewall - who I think are so dishonest and deceitful about this issue that they are almost impossible to pin down on anything - I suggest you read this statement by Keira Bell for her crowdfunder to sue the Gender Identity Service at the Tavistock. Her twitter is also very honest and thoughtful and she discusses the issues there quite often.









						Protect Gender Dysphoric Children from the Affirmation Model
					

I'm an ex patient of Gender Identity Clinics where I was prescribed dangerous, experimental drugs and received a double mastectomy procedure. I am fighting to stop this from happening to minors.




					www.crowdjustice.com


----------



## iveivan (Mar 29, 2021)

The argument by Stonewall is against trying to ‘cure’ trans people by therapy.


----------



## co-op (Mar 29, 2021)

smmudge said:


> And also, so many gay people wish that you wouldn't try to talk on behalf of them, or presume you know what they see. Thank you.



 yes and many wish that Stonewall would just come out as a trans organisation and stop faking its representation of lesbian, gay & bi people. But thanks for assuming.


----------



## elbows (Mar 29, 2021)

co-op said:


> Tons and tons of really shitty and hostile social pressure & contempt of course but absolutely no actual "conversion therapy".



I have no intention of ending my self-imposed ban from discussing trans issues on u75. But I will respond to this horseshit you are spouting about conversion therapy.

The following chart is from the Government equalities office 2018 national LGBT survey report.



			https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/721704/LGBT-survey-research-report.pdf


----------



## SpackleFrog (Mar 29, 2021)

co-op said:


> Rather than Stonewall - who I think are so dishonest and deceitful about this issue that they are almost impossible to pin down on anything - I suggest you read this statement by Keira Bell for her crowdfunder to sue the Gender Identity Service at the Tavistock. Her twitter is also very honest and thoughtful and she discusses the issues there quite often.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Cos there isn't a Stonewall link you lieing little prick. Youre just inventing reasons to keep talking about your obsessions.


----------



## smokedout (Mar 29, 2021)

co-op said:


> Of course there probably still are - crackpot religious converters trying it in the US, but here in the UK there is an absolute non-problem with conversion therapy and gay people now. Tons and tons of really shitty and hostile social pressure & contempt of course but absolutely no actual "conversion therapy".



Why are some religious groups fighting the ban then?  



> The Evangelical Alliance has always defended the practice of trying to change or suppress a person's sexuality, with a declaration on its website stating: "We welcome and support the work of those individuals and organisations who responsibly seek to help Christians who experience same-sex attraction as in conflict with their commitment to live in accordance with biblical teaching.
> 
> "Some may seek and experience changes in the strength or direction of their same-sex attractions."











						Evangelical Christians urge Boris Johnson not to ban conversion therapy | ITV News
					

The Evangelical Alliance, which represents 3,500 evangelical churches in the UK, has written to the PM urging him not to ban so-called conversion therapy. | ITV National News




					www.itv.com


----------



## belboid (Mar 29, 2021)

co-op said:


> Rather than Stonewall - who I think are so dishonest and deceitful about this issue that they are almost impossible to pin down on anything - I suggest you read this statement by Keira Bell for her crowdfunder to sue the Gender Identity Service at the Tavistock. Her twitter is also very honest and thoughtful and she discusses the issues there quite often.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


so that's a 'No, I dont have anything from Stonewall saying what I claim they did then.'


----------



## co-op (Mar 29, 2021)

smokedout said:


> Why are some religious groups fighting the ban then?
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Fair point, there are evangelical crazies in the UK too and I bet they run conversion camps to bully young gay people too. My point was that it is many decades since gay people have been subjected to conversion therapy by medical or therapeutic professionals in the UK.


----------



## belboid (Mar 29, 2021)

Edie said:


> I am disappointed that other people don’t wanna discuss how the left have created this shit show, and instead wanna discuss yet again whether trans women are actual women.
> 
> Because I’ve come to the conclusion that who cares anyway. They deserve to be treated with respect and advocated for, and women deserve sex-based protection, and that’s just the end of it for me. So I’m out.


Probably because most people dont think 'the left' (whoever they are) created this shit show.


----------



## smokedout (Mar 29, 2021)

belboid said:


> so that's a 'No, I dont have anything from Stonewall saying what I claim they did then.'



But the entire purpose of this thread is to evangelicise and put out as many gender critical 'facts' as possible, despite the consensus that discussions on this issue should be limited to the thread in k&s.  It doesn't seem to matter to some people that several posters have left over this issue, and that long standing friendships have fractured, a cis man wants to show us what a big tough protecter of women he is so fuck anyone who objects.


----------



## co-op (Mar 29, 2021)

elbows said:


> I have no intention of ending my self-imposed ban from discussing trans issues on u75. But I will respond to this horseshit you are spouting about conversion therapy.
> 
> The following chart is from the Government equalities office 2018 national LGBT survey report.
> 
> ...



Gay conversion therapy by health professionals has effectively been ruled unethical for decades in the UK. Yes there are a few crazy religious groups here and there - the report you cite shows much higher rates of "offers" of conversion therapy among religious people, lowest among atheists.


----------



## co-op (Mar 29, 2021)

smokedout said:


> But the entire purpose of this thread is to evangelicise and put out as many gender critical 'facts' as possible, despite the consensus that discussions on this issue should be limited to the thread in k&s.  It doesn't seem to matter to some people that several posters have left over this issue, and that long standing friendships have fractured, a cis man wants to show us what a big tough protecter of women he is so fuck anyone who objects.



What consensus was that? If you don't want to join the thread just put it on ignore. 

And thanks for making assumptions about my sexuality and gender identity.


----------



## Edie (Mar 29, 2021)

belboid said:


> Probably because most people dont think 'the left' (whoever they are) created this shit show.


Who do most people (on here) think has advanced identity politics if not the left?!


----------



## Knotted (Mar 29, 2021)

co-op said:


> Rather than Stonewall - who I think are so dishonest and deceitful about this issue that they are almost impossible to pin down on anything - I suggest you read this statement by Keira Bell for her crowdfunder to sue the Gender Identity Service at the Tavistock. Her twitter is also very honest and thoughtful and she discusses the issues there quite often.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I'm certainly willing to concede that things may have been going wrong here. However this part which is crux:


> If a clinician tries to challenge a child's misguided belief or explore its causes with a view to alleviating gender/sex confusion they run the risk of being accused of conversion therapy.



I don't think Keira Bell would be privy to the pressures that clinicians are under.

Stonewall's statement on conversion therapy can be found here:








						Protect Gender Dysphoric Children from the Affirmation Model
					

I'm an ex patient of Gender Identity Clinics where I was prescribed dangerous, experimental drugs and received a double mastectomy procedure. I am fighting to stop this from happening to minors.




					www.crowdjustice.com
				






> THE GOVERNMENT EQUALITIES OFFICE SHOULD:  ‐Bring forward and implement comprehensive proposals to end the practice of conversion therapy. This includes any form of treatment or psychotherapy that aims to change a person’s sexual orientation or to suppress a person’s gender identity



That's a statement about therapy with an explicit aim to convert. I can't read that as calling for a ban on therapy that explores alternatives to transitioning. Maybe there's a problem with unintended consequences and a lack of clarity over what constitutes conversion therapy, but I don't see them campaigning for a ban on exploring those alternatives.


----------



## LDC (Mar 29, 2021)

Edie said:


> There’s this organisation called
> 
> Who do most people (on here) think has advanced identity politics if not the left?!



I think the background to it, and why it has taken hold so much is much more complicated than it just being pushed by the left though. There's lots on it in the specific identity politics thread that's somewhere.


----------



## elbows (Mar 29, 2021)

co-op said:


> Gay conversion therapy by health professionals has effectively been ruled unethical for decades in the UK. Yes there are a few crazy religious groups here and there - the report you cite shows much higher rates of "offers" of conversion therapy among religious people, lowest among atheists.



From the same survey:


----------



## Knotted (Mar 29, 2021)

co-op said:


> What consensus was that? If you don't want to join the thread just put it on ignore.
> 
> And thanks for making assumptions about my sexuality and gender identity.



That's a really dickish response. Either look away and leave me to it or get involved and get upset. And I don't think Smokedout is just talking about themselves either.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Mar 29, 2021)

SpackleFrog said:


> Cos there isn't a Stonewall link you lieing little prick. Youre just inventing reasons to keep talking about your obsessions.


Not really fair. I nearly posted here a while ago about Keira Bell's case, but decided against the grief in the end. It is a shame that we've reached the point where nobody will raise it here because she is an extremely thoughtful person with a lot of very interesting and relevant points to make. Keira Bell very much does see things as co-op describes, with non-affirmation of gender classified as 'conversion therapy' and so not to be done. From her website:



> The Memorandum of Understanding on Conversion Therapy was originally a document rightly created in order to prevent conversion therapy for sexual orientation. However this document was updated in 2017 to include gender identity and it has been signed by many pro-trans institutions, by several psychotherapy bodies and also by the NHS. It regards all gender identities as of equal value and validity and states that no gender identity is to be preferred to any other. Attempts to help change or suppress a gender identity are seen as conversion therapy, unethical and potentially harmful. In practice this means that girls who believe they are boys are to be affirmed in that belief. Similarly boys who believe they are girls are to be affirmed in that belief. This limits the ability of clinicians to help children with these beliefs to be reconciled to their natal sex. If a clinician tries to challenge a child's misguided belief or explore its causes with a view to alleviating gender/sex confusion they run the risk of being accused of conversion therapy. This pressurises clinicians to adopt an affirmative approach to the beliefs of children and young people, affirming the gender they believe they are.


----------



## Athos (Mar 29, 2021)

Edie said:


> Who do most people (on here) think has advanced identity politics if not the left?!



Well-meaning but misguided social liberals, who aren't typically on the left i.e. committed to class struggle, but who are occupying the space left by the retreating old left (meanwhile the right have always embraced identity politics).


----------



## belboid (Mar 29, 2021)

Edie said:


> Who do most people (on here) think has advanced identity politics if not the left?!


I'm not really sure you'd get a definition of IP that we'd all agree with, but it's used by all sorts of people in all sorts of ways. Its a very liberal version of leftyism, at best (and it often isnt at its best)


----------



## Edie (Mar 29, 2021)

Athos said:


> Well-meaning but misguided social liberals, who aren't typically on the left i.e. committed to class struggle.


Yes you’re probably right on reflection. Pretty big Venn diagram overlap tho.


----------



## 8ball (Mar 29, 2021)

belboid said:


> I'm not really sure you'd get a definition of IP that we'd all agree with, but it's used by all sorts of people in all sorts of ways. Its a very liberal version of leftyism, at best (and it often isnt at its best)



Let's not forget that the far right indulge in identity politics quite enthusiastically.


----------



## Athos (Mar 29, 2021)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Not really fair. I nearly posted here a while ago about Keira Bell's case, but decided against the grief in the end. It is a shame that we've reached the point where nobody will raise it here because she is an extremely thoughtful person with a lot of very interesting and relevant points to make. Keira Bell very much does see things as co-op describes, with non-affirmation of gender classified as 'conversion therapy' and so not to be done. From her website:



That's fair enough but co-op overreached in claiming what he did (i.e. that Stonewall describes any non-affirmation as conversion therapy), and then failed to back it up with any evidence.


----------



## smokedout (Mar 29, 2021)

Edie said:


> Who do most people (on here) think has advanced identity politics if not the left?!



Neither the left or identity politics invented trans people, although I don't disagree with your broader point,   But in truth much of this, including a lot of the arguments and tactics at play, particularly attempting to split the T from LGBT, has come pretty directly from the conservative right.  It's the Murdoch press amongst others who have driven this debate really, the gender critical movement is pretty invisible to most people, The Times, Telegraph and Daily Mail are not.


----------



## Knotted (Mar 29, 2021)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Not really fair. I nearly posted here a while ago about Keira Bell's case, but decided against the grief in the end. It is a shame that we've reached the point where nobody will raise it here because she is an extremely thoughtful person with a lot of very interesting and relevant points to make. Keira Bell very much does see things as co-op describes, with non-affirmation of gender classified as 'conversion therapy' and so not to be done. From her website:



Co-op was specifically talking about Stonewall and/or other unnamed trans rights groups. He flatly ducked out of showing us what he meant.


----------



## Athos (Mar 29, 2021)

Edie said:


> Yes you’re probably right on reflection. Pretty big Venn diagram overlap tho.



Insofar as they 'identify as', yes; insofar as they 'are', less so!


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Mar 29, 2021)

Knotted said:


> Co-op was specifically talking about Stonewall and/or other unnamed trans rights groups. He flatly ducked out of showing us what he meant.


The memorandum of understanding that Keira Bell talks about was endorsed by Stonewall.

Memorandum of understanding on conversion therapy in the UK

Problem isn't so much with the text itself as with its interpretation on the ground, I would think. It starts off with this:



> For the purposes of this document ’conversion therapy’ is an umbrella term for a therapeutic approach, or any model or individual viewpoint that demonstrates an assumption that any sexual orientation or gender identity is inherently preferable to any other, and which attempts to bring about a change of sexual orientation or gender identity, or seeks to suppress an individual’s expression of sexual orientation or gender identity on that basis.



But it does later on say this:



> For people who are unhappy about their sexual orientation or their gender identity, there may be grounds for exploring therapeutic options to help them live more comfortably with it, reduce their distress and reach a greater degree of self-acceptance.



tbh my problem with it is the idea that there is an equivalence between sexual orientation and gender identity. These don't obviously appear to me to be the same kind of thing, but the idea that they are is assumed to be true by this MoU.


----------



## Athos (Mar 29, 2021)

littlebabyjesus said:


> The memorandum of understanding that Keira Bell talks about was endorsed by Stonewall.
> 
> Memorandum of understanding on conversion therapy in the UK



Yes, but that MOU seems to say the opposite of what co-op claims is Stonewall's position, particularly at para 6:

6 This position is not intended to deny, discourage or exclude those with uncertain feelings around sexuality or gender identity from seeking qualified and appropriate help. This document supports therapists to provide appropriately informed and ethical practice when working with a client who wishes to explore, experiences conflict with or is in distress regarding, their sexual orientation or gender identity. Nor is it intended to stop psychological and medical professionals who work with trans and gender questioning clients from performing a clinical assessment of suitability prior to medical intervention. Nor is it intended to stop medical professionals from prescribing hormone treatments and other medications to trans patients and people experiencing gender dysphoria. For people who are unhappy about their sexual orientation or their gender identity, there may be grounds for exploring therapeutic options to help them live more comfortably with it, reduce their distress and reach a greater degree of self-acceptance. Some people may benefit from the support of psychotherapy and counselling to help them manage unhappiness and to clarify their sense of themselves. Clients make healthy choices when they understand themselves better. Ethical practice in these cases requires the practitioner to have adequate knowledge and understanding of gender and sexual diversity and to be free from any agenda that favours one gender identity or sexual orientation as preferable over other gender and sexual diversities. For this reason, it is essential for clinicians to acknowledge the broad spectrum of sexual orientations and gender identities and gender expressions.


----------



## co-op (Mar 29, 2021)

Stonewall have spent the last god knows how many years replacing the words "sex" or "sexual identity" with the words "gender" and "gender identity" wherever possible and simple adding "or gender identity" when they can't get away with that.


----------



## smokedout (Mar 29, 2021)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Not really fair. I nearly posted here a while ago about Keira Bell's case, but decided against the grief in the end. It is a shame that we've reached the point where nobody will raise it here because she is an extremely thoughtful person with a lot of very interesting and relevant points to make. Keira Bell very much does see things as co-op describes, with non-affirmation of gender classified as 'conversion therapy' and so not to be done. From her website:



Is that Kiera who recently leapt to Posie Parker's defence after she called for men 'who carry' in the US to start using women's toilets to protect them from the trans?

I think given who Kiera has fallen in with then this piece provides some useful balance:  Ideologically-Motivated Detransition as a Conversion Practice- A Personal Account


----------



## Knotted (Mar 29, 2021)

littlebabyjesus said:


> The memorandum of understanding that Keira Bell talks about was endorsed by Stonewall.
> 
> Memorandum of understanding on conversion therapy in the UK



I don't doubt she has an important story to tell, but as I've pointed out above she wouldn't be privy to the pressures clinicians are under and would not have any direct experience of the how the memorandum is applied. It's not clear from that what went wrong and how in this case. I found this statement interesting:



> I now reject the harmful concept of gender identity (in terms of your brain and/or soul having a gender) and the idea that someone can be born in the wrong body.



That's actually a crude understanding of what being trans is that I believe a lot of trans people quietly reject. If this is the sort of message and explanation she was being given in therapy sessions, then it _seems _she was getting poor information on the issues. But anyway, there could be all sorts of things going wrong that aren't traceable to the memorandum on conversion therapy.


----------



## co-op (Mar 29, 2021)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Not really fair. I nearly posted here a while ago about Keira Bell's case, but decided against the grief in the end. It is a shame that we've reached the point where nobody will raise it here because she is an extremely thoughtful person with a lot of very interesting and relevant points to make.



The silence was deafening on here. And yes who needs the grief. But avoiding it is partly why we're in this mess.


----------



## Athos (Mar 29, 2021)

co-op said:


> Stonewall have spent the last god knows how many years replacing the words "sex" or "sexual identity" with the words "gender" and "gender identity" wherever possible and simple adding "or gender identity" when they can't get away with that.



That may be true, but it's still a long way short of your claim.  You should back it up or retract it, else you run the risk of looking like you're playing fast and loose with the truth to further a particular agenda.


----------



## Border Reiver (Mar 29, 2021)

8ball said:


> View attachment 260842



Type 2

Charles Raff[3] draws a distinction between three types of incorrigibility:

Type-1: It is logically necessary that, when the statement is sincerely made, it is true.
Type-2: It is necessary that when the statement is believed to be true, it is true.
Type-3: It is necessary that when the statement is true, it is believed to b



littlebabyjesus said:


> Not really fair. I nearly posted here a while ago about Keira Bell's case, but decided against the grief in the end. It is a shame that we've reached the point where nobody will raise it here because she is an extremely thoughtful person with a lot of very interesting and relevant points to make. Keira Bell very much does see things as co-op describes, with non-affirmation of gender classified as 'conversion therapy' and so not to be done. From her website:


Who "updated it"? With what authority?


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Mar 29, 2021)

Border Reiver said:


> Type 2
> 
> Charles Raff[3] draws a distinction between three types of incorrigibility:
> 
> ...


I don't know. You tell me.

You demand a lot but give precious little.


----------



## Border Reiver (Mar 29, 2021)

littlebabyjesus said:


> I don't know. You tell me.
> 
> You demand a lot but give precious little.


Sorry messed up the coding. Was a reply to the Memorandum.


----------



## Border Reiver (Mar 29, 2021)

littlebabyjesus said:


> The memorandum of understanding that Keira Bell talks about was endorsed by Stonewall.
> 
> Memorandum of understanding on conversion therapy in the UK
> 
> ...



It seems that the original is still the policy agreed by the Psychotherapists. The additions are not accepted by the original writers.


----------



## smokedout (Mar 29, 2021)

> On a dull autumn day in 1964, two NHS doctors strapped a 17-year-old boy into a wooden chair in a dark, windowless room and covered him in electrodes. During hours of so-called therapy, they repeatedly electrocuted him while showing him images of women's clothing.












						Trans conversion therapy survivor: 'I wanted to be cured so asked to be electrocuted'
					

As a teenage boy, Carolyn Mercer had electric shock therapy on the NHS in the hope she would be "cured".



					www.bbc.co.uk
				






> “So, to treat Bradley, Zucker explained to Carol that she and her husband would have to radically change their parenting. Bradley would no longer be allowed to spend time with girls. He would no longer be allowed to play with girlish toys or pretend that he was a female character. Zucker said that all of these activities were dangerous to a kid with gender identity disorder. He explained that unless Carol and her husband helped the child to change his behavior, as Bradley grew older, he likely would be rejected by both peer groups. Boys would find his feminine interests unappealing. Girls would want more boyish boys. Bradley would be an outcast.”











						Reparative Therapy for Trans Youth: Kenneth Zucker is Different from George Rekers How?
					

Watching this recent CNN story on reparative therapy and the damage it did to George Reker’s poster child (Kirk Andrew Murphy), I was struck by the similarity of this story and a child that N…




					www.transadvocate.com
				






> Of the three, Dan attempted the most resistance techniques. This included playing dumb to run out the clock on sessions, giving long rambling non-answers, and claiming that his tampon was about to leak when things got too mentally dangerous in order to escape to the bathroom. He understood that they were trying to “slowly worm their way into my head”, in order to “get you to believe you’re not trans”.
> 
> Privileges were withheld if Dan wasn’t cooperative enough. He told me that they stopped giving him food he was capable of eating as punishment for being found wearing a binder that had been smuggled in, and claims that when he started, he was 125 lbs, and only 87 lbs when he left. No one is ever “cured”; he said, they “leave when they turn 18 or their parents won’t pay for it anymore”.
> 
> In the end, none of them stopped being transgender, and they still have their trans masculine identities. Conversely, all of them admitted that conversion therapy experiences left them traumatised and emotionally scarred.











						Trans men share brutal accounts of conversion therapy camps, where they were abused and forced to carry heavy rocks
					

Trans men have described the treatment they underwent at 'conversion therapy camps', where therapists tried to convince them to be cis.




					www.pinknews.co.uk
				




This is what conversion therapy looks like.  This is what people want to ban, and given the way the rhetoric is going in the UK then that's understandable. Zucker amongst others is very popular in some gender critical circles.


----------



## The39thStep (Mar 29, 2021)

Athos said:


> Well-meaning but misguided social liberals, who aren't typically on the left i.e. committed to class struggle, but who are occupying the space left by the retreating old left (meanwhile the right have always embraced identity politics).


That's a very decent attempt but lets face it there are loads on what passes for the left these days who aren't committed to class struggle. In fact, for quite a few the dream would be socialism without the working class


----------



## Shechemite (Mar 29, 2021)

These are all horrific. The example from the U.K. is from 1964.

ECT is still used in the U.K. - eg for ‘treatment resistant depression’ (I’m not going to get into the pros and cons of ECT) but it’s not used now as conversion therapy (either for gender identity or for sexual orientation, and there are no plans to use it for such purposes, unless I’m mistaken.



smokedout said:


> Trans conversion therapy survivor: 'I wanted to be cured so asked to be electrocuted'
> 
> 
> As a teenage boy, Carolyn Mercer had electric shock therapy on the NHS in the hope she would be "cured".
> ...


----------



## Smokeandsteam (Mar 29, 2021)

8ball said:


> I agree it's a great post, but am having trouble with the "the left has increasingly focused on individualism" thing.  Is that quite what happened, or was it the split between the left and the working class that led the left in the direction of intersections between minority subsets, gradually boiling the soup of class conflict into something very granular?



I’d argue it was both, but this isn’t the thread to get into a debate on it.


----------



## Shechemite (Mar 29, 2021)

There does seem to be a growing anti-medical quackery industry - especially in the states. I take the point that it’s important to be vigilant about this stuff.


----------



## Shechemite (Mar 29, 2021)

Smokeandsteam said:


> I’d argue it was both, but this isn’t the thread to get into a debate on it.



I thought the frustration was that we weren’t getting into the politics of identity but rather spending too much time discussing the natureof dysphoria?

fwiw I experience near constant dysphoria. I’ve grown up in a society where my dysphoria doesn’t equate to others changing their perceptions of shared reality. I think that has its pros and cons.

I think when you’re just _used_ to having other people’s (hardly disinterested) perceptions form an ‘objective’ account of your identity, you learn to live with it. I’ve yet to meet anyone who’s been able to have a medical or psychiatric dx added or removed from their records by simply stating their preference.

a big, and increasing, part of NHS mh care over the last 15 or so years has been to convince people who say they are ill that they are in fact not ill (with all the loss of support, and and all the moralising that goes with dealing with ‘malingerers‘ (cheers Szazs!); and has seen the rebranding of those formerly with ‘psychotic illness’ with ‘personality disorder’ (try getting them off your records through self-identification!  ). Is every recovery college an example conversion therapy? Every NHS ‘complex needs‘/personality disorder service? I’m honestly not sure which part of mental health care doesn’t involve the risk that your _over valued ideas_ won’t be challenged


----------



## Clair De Lune (Mar 29, 2021)

co-op said:


> It depends doesn't it? Who is talking to who, when, why with what motive. But in my view, especially with young people it is part of a proper therapeutic response to not simply "affirm" the self-diagnosis of being trans. But this is being called conversion therapy by Stonewall now. The reality is that it has been decades since there was any serious attempt at converting gay people by medical or therapeutic practioners in the UK. Of course there probably still are - crackpot religious converters trying it in the US, but here in the UK there is an absolute non-problem with conversion therapy and gay people now. Tons and tons of really shitty and hostile social pressure & contempt of course but absolutely no actual "conversion therapy".
> 
> So why has Stonewall launched this great campaign now? Because they've done what they always do now and smooshed "gender identity" in with "sexuality" and are trying to prevent any approach to young people presenting self-diagnosed as Trans except "affirmation". The _real_ conversion therapy ironically is turning gay people straight by transing them, and the charge is being led by Stonewall. It's fecking surreal.


No therapy should set out to change the client. It's a place to explore, not impose the therapists views on the client. Counsellors aren't going round telling young people they are trans, they just aren't telling them they aren't.


----------



## Funky_monks (Mar 29, 2021)

maomao said:


> Twitter is a pretty absurd thing though. Privatised free speech.


Sort of like internet bulletin boards?


----------



## 8ball (Mar 29, 2021)

Funky_monks said:


> Sort of like internet bulletin boards?



Twitter doesn’t do free speech and neither does urban. Except for being ‘free’ in the monetary sense.

There are plenty of places where you can say what you like on the internet, though.


----------



## SpackleFrog (Mar 29, 2021)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Not really fair. I nearly posted here a while ago about Keira Bell's case, but decided against the grief in the end. It is a shame that we've reached the point where nobody will raise it here because she is an extremely thoughtful person with a lot of very interesting and relevant points to make. Keira Bell very much does see things as co-op describes, with non-affirmation of gender classified as 'conversion therapy' and so not to be done. From her website:



Its perfectly fair. Yer man has claimed that Stonewall's campaign against conversion therapy is about treatment of trans children rather than about Bible bashers praying the gay away. Yet when challenged refuses to give evidence. And he gets challenged a lot and he never produces evidence.


----------



## Dystopiary (Mar 29, 2021)

co-op said:


> What consensus was that? If you don't want to join the thread just put it on ignore.
> 
> And thanks for making assumptions about my sexuality and gender identity.



You're under no obligation to tell anyone your gender identity, but a lot of posts refer to you as male, to which you haven't objected, and blokes telling women how to do feminism is not on imo. I'm a woman btw.


----------



## Kevbad the Bad (Mar 29, 2021)

Dystopiary said:


> You're under no obligation to tell anyone your gender identity, but a lot of posts refer to you as male, to which you haven't objected, and blokes telling women how to do feminism is not on imo. I'm a woman btw.


This line of argument gets no-one anywhere. When the area of disagreement is fundamentally about sex and gender, and a commonly used slogan is 'trans women are women', and some would say that one can self-id as either gender, or none, or both, or whatever, then your claim to be a woman proves what exactly?


----------



## SpackleFrog (Mar 29, 2021)

Kevbad the Bad said:


> This line of argument gets no-one anywhere. When the area of disagreement is fundamentally about sex and gender, and a commonly used slogan is 'trans women are women', and some would say that one can self-id as either gender, or none, or both, or whatever, then your claim to be a woman proves what exactly?



Well by that criteria the whole thread gets us nowhere, because the purpose of the thread is simply to restate the disagreement by repeating that trans women are not women and that biological sex is all that matters as often as possible, no matter the level of tedium and annoyance caused. 

"Some would say" is an interesting phrase by the way. "Some might say". No one on this thread has actually claimed you can identify as both genders, or 'whatever' but don't let that stop you. Are you going to ask every woman if their claim to womanhood is valid by the way, or just those you suspect might be trans?


----------



## Dystopiary (Mar 29, 2021)

Kevbad the Bad said:


> This line of argument gets no-one anywhere. When the area of disagreement is fundamentally about sex and gender, and a commonly used slogan is 'trans women are women', and some would say that one can self-id as either gender, or none, or both, or whatever, then your claim to be a woman proves what exactly?


It doesn't necessarily prove anything, I just think men stirring the pot about trans women, ostensibly in the name of caring about cis women, is a bit iffy.


----------



## BigMoaner (Mar 30, 2021)

Border Reiver said:


> Cognition and emotion are separate from reality.


That's an incredibly problematic statement in itself, one that has bewildered philosophers for centuries. Mind body problem in a nutshell. Your statement is a religious one. The materialists would say that cognitions and emotion are as real as rocks and flowers.


----------



## BigMoaner (Mar 30, 2021)

Anywau have no opinion on the wider thread! Carry on!


----------



## krtek a houby (Mar 30, 2021)

8ball said:


> Let's not forget that the far right indulge in identity politics quite enthusiastically.



Very strong feelings on plastic potato toys, Dr Seuss cartoons and Disney genderless greetings, currently.


----------



## Spanner (Mar 30, 2021)

maomao said:


> Compares being trans to thinking she's black because she listens to Bob Marley.



I think she’s asking the question whether it’s a comparable argument, rather than comparing being “trans to thinking she’s black”.

“_Ask yourself this question, is it OK for me to identify as black because I feel black and I listen to Bob Malrley?”_

I get the impression her answer is she feels that neither scenarios are true, i.e. you are whatever your birth gender and colour identifies you as, and you can’t retrospectively change it because how how you feel.


----------



## Spanner (Mar 30, 2021)

iveivan said:


> “_I believe in biological reality and do not subscribe to the notion of gender identity”_
> 
> The presumption in the post is that trans people do not exist and people who say they are are frauds. That‘s transphobic.



You added the word “frauds” to bolster your point.

If I say: “I believe in Jesus Christ, and do not subscribe to the notion of Islam or any other God”

Does that statement make me an “Islamophobe”?


----------



## Raheem (Mar 30, 2021)

Spanner said:


> You added the word “frauds” to bolster your point.
> 
> If I say: “I believe in Jesus Christ, and do not subscribe to the notion of Islam or any other God”
> 
> Does that statement make me an “Islamophobe”?


It makes you really bad at analogies.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Mar 30, 2021)

Without reading most of the thread, the tweet quoted in the OP says 'outed as a T*RF' which puts 'TERF' on a level with terms of racist abuse etc which are too upsetting to quote in full.

Which is bullshit. Puts my heckles up straight away. If you really believe that word is too heinous to be written down, then don't write it at all.


----------



## bmd (Mar 30, 2021)

I am really grateful for this thread. This is a big part of the reason why I'm here, to learn stuff like this. I fully fully fully support natural born women's (I don't even know if that's offensive to trans women?) rights to mark out their own agenda, separate from any other. Also, I never ever want to see anyone be discriminated against. I do not understand the issues in any meaningful, I can explain them to an other, kind of way. So, yeah I'll be reading this thread with interest and learning.


----------



## bmd (Mar 30, 2021)

Border Reiver said:


> Both "gender" and "sex" are constructs. Neither are "natural" categories.



I have read this most often, recently, with regards to trans rights. I always wonder what a natural category is? Please imagine Google doesn't exist btw, it's really hard to find a succinct answer that I can question (sorry). I have been taught, all my life, that there are 2 sexes. That being born with certain chromosomes means that you are one or the other. That seems natural to me. Why isn't it?


----------



## 19force8 (Mar 30, 2021)

SpookyFrank said:


> Without reading most of the thread, the tweet quoted in the OP says 'outed as a T*RF' which puts 'TERF' on a level with terms of racist abuse etc which are too upsetting to quote in full.
> 
> Which is bullshit. Puts my heckles up straight away. If you really believe that word is too heinous to be written down, then don't write it at all.


I had difficulty concentrating on the passage quoted in the OP because the neighbours' dogs were going ballistic.


----------



## Athos (Mar 30, 2021)

bmd said:


> I have read this most often, recently, with regards to trans rights. I always wonder what a natural category is? Please imagine Google doesn't exist btw, it's really hard to find a succinct answer that I can question (sorry). I have been taught, all my life, that there are 2 sexes. That being born with certain chromosomes means that you are one or the other. That seems natural to me. Why isn't it?



There's two aspects: first, not everyone neatly fits into XX or XY; secondly, sex can be defined other than by reference to chromosomes e.g. physiognomy, or with reference to gamete or hormone production.

With regard to the trans issue, though, it's a bit of a red herring; there nothing to suggest the vast majority of trans women are a different sex from cis men on whatever measure you pick.

Which makes it a bit of a dead end. Better arguments for treating trans women *as* women (in terms of gender, if not sex) in some circumstances (whether or not you think they *are* women) include the threat of male violence shared by cis and trans women.  That's something people could agree on, whereas trying to tweak women's understanding of sex (often with far from settled science) just alienates many women.


----------



## bmd (Mar 30, 2021)

Athos said:


> There's two aspects: first, not everyone neatly fits into XX or XY; secondly, sex can be defined other than by reference to chromosomes e.g. physiognomy, or with reference to gamete or hormone production.
> 
> With regard to the trans issue, though, it's a bit of a red herring; there nothing to suggest the vast majority of trans women are a different sex from cis men on whatever measure you pick.
> 
> Which makes it a bit of a dead end. Better arguments for treating trans women *as* women in some circumstances (whether or not you think they *are* women) include the threat of male violence shared by cis and trans women.  That's something people could agree on, whereas trying to tweak women's understanding of sex (often with far from settled science) just alienates many women.



Whilst I appreciate your taking the time to reply, my experience of you has been of someone who likes to fuck around with a version of the truth. So thanks but no thanks.

eta: If I had enough knowledge to throw your words in the air and know which was wheat and which was chaff then I would be fine with your post. But I don't so I have to go on the knowledge I do have.


----------



## Athos (Mar 30, 2021)

bmd said:


> Whilst I appreciate your taking the time to reply, my experience of you has been of someone who likes to fuck around with a version of the truth. So thanks but no thanks.



You still smarting from the other thread?   The one in which I called you out for your decision to stand shoulder-to-shoulder with bigoted religious authoritarians?


----------



## bmd (Mar 30, 2021)

Athos said:


> You still smarting from the other thread?



Exactly.


----------



## Border Reiver (Mar 30, 2021)

bmd said:


> I have read this most often, recently, with regards to trans rights. I always wonder what a natural category is? Please imagine Google doesn't exist btw, it's really hard to find a succinct answer that I can question (sorry). I have been taught, all my life, that there are 2 sexes. That being born with certain chromosomes means that you are one or the other. That seems natural to me. Why isn't it?


A natural category is something that would exist without human intervention or interpretation. Such as mass, extension, time, velocity, hardness, reactivity. Everything that requires have man definition is a construct. Not a social construct, but a scientific construct. The former matters exist without science- they would still exist if there was no observer; they are universal and timeless. The latter are culturally dependent in time and place.


----------



## bmd (Mar 30, 2021)

Border Reiver said:


> A natural category is something that would exist without human intervention or interpretation. Such as mass, extension, time, velocity, hardness, reactivity. Everything that requires have man definition is a construct. Not a social construct, but a scientific construct. The former matters exist without science- they would still exist if there was no observer; they are universal and timeless. The latter are culturally dependent in time and place.



So, we expect definitions to be allowed to change and this one, gender, is being forced to stay the same because some of us buy into it for our own reasons and therefore won't allow Trans people because of those reasons?


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Mar 30, 2021)

Border Reiver said:


> A natural category is something that would exist without human intervention or interpretation. Such as mass, extension, time, velocity, hardness, reactivity. Everything that requires have man definition is a construct. Not a social construct, but a scientific construct. The former matters exist without science- they would still exist if there was no observer; they are universal and timeless. The latter are culturally dependent in time and place.


Sexual reproduction happened long before humans existed, and no doubt will for long after humans cease existing. 

'hardness' is a very good example of a quality that isn't 'out there' in quite the way we might think it is. That concept is our construct.


----------



## Border Reiver (Mar 30, 2021)

SpookyFrank said:


> Without reading most of the thread, the tweet quoted in the OP says 'outed as a T*RF' which puts 'TERF' on a level with terms of racist abuse etc which are too upsetting to quote in full.
> 
> Which is bullshit. Puts my heckles up straight away. If you really believe that word is too heinous to be written down, then don't write it at all.



It is a toxic term as is transphobia. As with terms used in the abortion debate, neutral terms create better discussion.


----------



## Border Reiver (Mar 30, 2021)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Sexual reproduction happened long before humans existed, and no doubt will for long after humans cease existing.
> 
> 'hardness' is a very good example of a quality that isn't 'out there' in quite the way we might think it is. That concept is our construct.


Tell that to rocks undergoing erosion.😀

Reproduction is natural, "sex" as a concept is not.


----------



## bmd (Mar 30, 2021)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Sexual reproduction happened long before humans existed, and no doubt will for long after humans cease existing.
> 
> 'hardness' is a very good example of a quality that isn't 'out there' in quite the way we might think it is. That concept is our construct.



So some people argue that Gender _is_ natural?


----------



## Border Reiver (Mar 30, 2021)

bmd said:


> So, we expect definitions to be allowed to change and this one, gender, is being forced to stay the same because some of us buy into it for our own reasons and therefore won't allow Trans people because of those reasons?


That is the social effect of it.

Almost every philosophical discussion founders on failure to agree common ground. Little common ground is available for non-natural categories.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Mar 30, 2021)

Border Reiver said:


> Tell that to rocks undergoing erosion.😀
> 
> Reproduction is natural, "sex" as a concept is not.


Tell that to the rabbits reproducing. 

'sex' as a concept is there to explain the workings of sexual reproduction. It's not really on a different level from the concept 'photon' that is there to explain the workings of light. 

If you think I'm wrong, explain how sexual reproduction works without reference to the concept 'sex'.


----------



## bmd (Mar 30, 2021)

Border Reiver said:


> That is the social effect of it.
> 
> Almost every philosophical discussion founders on failure to agree common ground. Little common ground is available for non-natural categories.



So Trans people are like early settlers in a hostile country?

I really appreciate you taking the time to say this.

eta: last post of mine that starts with fucking 'so'.


----------



## Knotted (Mar 30, 2021)

I like a good discussion about scientific realism and developmental biology as much as anyone. But doing it here prolongs the life of a thread that may be causing upset anyway.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Mar 30, 2021)

Knotted said:


> I like a good discussion about scientific realism and developmental biology as much as anyone. But doing it here prolongs the life of a thread that may be causing upset anyway.


Ok, I'll try to leave it. This does matter, though, I think, because this is pretty much exactly the kind of thing some people mean when they say there is an attempt to 'erase' sex. At the very least, it is an attempt to place sex and gender next to one another as equivalently culturally determined concepts. And it is the product of hopelessly muddled thinking, thinking that in this instance combines naive realism with extreme Bishop Berkeleyism.

So what, you see someone saying stupid shit and you don't challenge it?


----------



## kabbes (Mar 30, 2021)

8ball said:


> Depends a bit on how "incorrigible" was being used.  A person's reflection on their experiences, and subsequent experience of them, is culturally malleable, though.


I would go further, actually, and suggest that their experiences are mediated through their cultural tools, such that how they experience and what meaning they assign to it is _directly determined_ by their culture.

In turn, this means that experience _can_ be debated.  It isn’t something essential.


----------



## bmd (Mar 30, 2021)

Knotted said:


> I like a good discussion about scientific realism and developmental biology as much as anyone. But doing it here prolongs the life of a thread that may be causing upset anyway.



How do we talk about this then? I am not trying to get in your face. I just want to understand this and I really felt like I was starting to. But then I also do not want to upset anyone.


----------



## Border Reiver (Mar 30, 2021)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Tell that to the rabbits reproducing.
> 
> 'sex' as a concept is there to explain the workings of sexual reproduction. It's not really on a different level from the concept 'photon' that is there to explain the workings of light.
> 
> If you think I'm wrong, explain how sexual reproduction works without reference to the concept 'sex'.


Reproduction is an event. "Sex" is a category. Sex as a concept did not exist until it was conceptualised  by early folk scientists. Reproduction (sexual or asexual) has existed since single celled organisms evolved.


----------



## 19force8 (Mar 30, 2021)

bmd said:


> I have read this most often, recently, with regards to trans rights. I always wonder what a natural category is? Please imagine Google doesn't exist btw, it's really hard to find a succinct answer that I can question (sorry). I have been taught, all my life, that there are 2 sexes. That being born with certain chromosomes means that you are one or the other. That seems natural to me. Why isn't it?


There's a scientific, philosophical and mathematical debate about natural sets. I don't understand it, but that's not really what's being talked about here, which is the idea that there's a natural order to things and when we choose to put them into groups it isn't just a whim, it's their proper place in "nature."

The problem is that nature isn't just black and white, there are shades of grey and exceptions.

To recap, you were taught there are two distinct and immutable sexes determined by chromosomes. Yes?

And yet there exist men with XX chromosomes and women with XY. Then there are intersex people. There are also animals that can switch between male and female. Clearly, the world is more complex than you were taught. Maybe time for a readjustment.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Mar 30, 2021)

Border Reiver said:


> Reproduction is an event. "Sex" is a category. Sex as a concept did not exist until it was conceptualised  by early folk scientists. Reproduction (sexual or asexual) has existed since single celled organisms evolved.


Perhaps mercifully, I really don't have time for this today. But you are hopelessly confused.


----------



## Border Reiver (Mar 30, 2021)

Knotted said:


> I like a good discussion about scientific realism and developmental biology as much as anyone. But doing it here prolongs the life of a thread that may be causing upset anyway.



Two old women on a bus


Knotted said:


> I like a good discussion about scientific realism and developmental biology as much as anyone. But doing it here prolongs the life of a thread that may be causing upset anyway.



Old philosophers' joke

Two old women on a bus. 
One says "Isn't that news dreadful"
The other replies "Just be philosophical, don't think about it".


----------



## Border Reiver (Mar 30, 2021)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Perhaps mercifully, I really don't have time for this today. But you are hopelessly confused.


Either that or I understand matters somewhat better than you do. My beliefs are firmly anchored in Epistemology and the Philosophy of Science. Are you aware of the concepts "Universals" and "Particulars".


----------



## Border Reiver (Mar 30, 2021)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Perhaps mercifully, I really don't have time for this today. But you are hopelessly confused.


I do tend to ignore people who use abuse in debate. You not understanding a complex subject does not mean that anyone else is confused.


----------



## Knotted (Mar 30, 2021)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Ok, I'll try to leave it. This does matter, though, I think, because this is pretty much exactly the kind of thing some people mean when they say there is an attempt to 'erase' sex. At the very least, it is an attempt to place sex and gender next to one another as equivalently culturally determined concepts. And it is the product of hopelessly muddled thinking, thinking that in this instance combines naive realism with extreme Bishop Berkeleyism.
> 
> So what, you see someone saying stupid shit and you don't challenge it?



Does it matter politically? Suppose we discover a long lost tribe whose hermaphrodite tendencies blow apart all fixed notions of sex. Would that spell the end of feminism, or would that be the key discovery that confirms the necessity for the gender recognition act? Surely not, both have firmer ground than this! Politically it's a non issue, except perhaps as it relates to intersex people. Scientifically, it could be very interesting though.

You could always start a thread on the science of sex if you want. Surely a better place for it, away from all the heat.


----------



## Knotted (Mar 30, 2021)

bmd said:


> How do we talk about this then? I am not trying to get in your face. I just want to understand this and I really felt like I was starting to. But then I also do not want to upset anyone.



If we're talking about scientific matters, I think that would best done on its own thread.


----------



## co-op (Mar 30, 2021)

Dystopiary said:


> You're under no obligation to tell anyone your gender identity, but a lot of posts refer to you as male, to which you haven't objected, and blokes telling women how to do feminism is not on imo. I'm a woman btw.



My gender identity and sexuality are as complex as the next persons & not things I have discussed in any meaningful way on these boards, that's just not my thing. But I am biologically male, a man, and it is through that physical prism that my GI and sexuality are expressed. But as Kevbad the Bad has said; if I can simply identify into womanhood, who are you or anyone to tell me that I'm a "man telling women how to do feminism"?  Or maybe - like Eddie Izzard  - I have a girl mode and a boy mode and I flip between them and some of my posts are by a woman, some by a man?

The reason for starting this thread wasn't to lecture anyone about feminism and how to do it properly but a rush of blood to the head at seeing that Vicky Hubble had been banned off twitter for "transphobia" for the saying what's quoted in the OP and just being completely baffled at how large sections of the left can look at what she wrote and think "ah yes, that's the enemy, she's _obviously_ motivated by hatred and bigotry".

I am just baffled and depressed more than I can say about this. I know serious left wing people who are seriously talking about voting tory over this. WTAF?

Probably the thread should have gone in the direction that Edie pointed it, trying to work out why this has happened and what we can do about it except just have this awful fucking death battle until some split is made real or the next Big Thing comes along and eclipses this but I never know how that can happen without rehashing all the issues yet again.

What a nightmare.


----------



## bmd (Mar 30, 2021)

19force8 said:


> There's a scientific, philosophical and mathematical debate about natural sets. I don't understand it, but that's not really what's being talked about here, which is the idea that there's a natural order to things and when we choose to put them into groups it isn't just a whim, it's their proper place in "nature."
> 
> The problem is that nature isn't just black and white, there are shades of grey and exceptions.
> 
> ...



Some things aren't black and white. Got it. Many thanks.


----------



## kabbes (Mar 30, 2021)

The reason that it matters to consider the reproductive categories associated with sex is nothing to do with personal feelings or self-definition.  The reason these categories matter is because this particular issue of self-identity happens to cross over with a much larger and ongoing cultural and political battle about the power inequality that derives from control over reproductivivity (both in the sexual sense and also in the sense of the reproduction of capital).  To this end, it doesn't really matter whether sex categories are "natural" or socially constructed, actually.  Either way, they have the same concrete reality in terms of the way _other_ people see _you _and this has real-world consequences in terms of the opportunities given to you, the threats you face and the subjectivity you are directed towards.  What strikes me again and again in these debates is that this two-way nature of identity construction tends to be ignored, as if identity is something purely personal or atomised or individual rather than embedded in the context of social and power relations.


----------



## Looby (Mar 30, 2021)

I keep seeing ‘the left’. It’s ‘the left’ to blame etc etc
Who the fuck are you talking about? It’s not some united harmonious group, I see very little consensus between factions and groups that apparently make up ‘the left’. 
So who is being lumped into this because they’re getting blamed for a whole lot of shit they seem to have zero control or influence over?


----------



## Border Reiver (Mar 30, 2021)

co-op said:


> My gender identity and sexuality are as complex as the next persons & not things I have discussed in any meaningful way on these boards, that's just not my thing. But I am biologically male, a man, and it is through that physical prism that my GI and sexuality are expressed. But as Kevbad the Bad has said; if I can simply identify into womanhood, who are you or anyone to tell me that I'm a "man telling women how to do feminism"?  Or maybe - like Eddie Izzard  - I have a girl mode and a boy mode and I flip between them and some of my posts are by a woman, some by a man?
> 
> The reason for starting this thread wasn't to lecture anyone about feminism and how to do it properly but a rush of blood to the head at seeing that Vicky Hubble had been banned off twitter for "transphobia" for the saying what's quoted in the OP and just being completely baffled at how large sections of the left can look at what she wrote and think "ah yes, that's the enemy, she's _obviously_ motivated by hatred and bigotry".
> 
> ...



Having read the actual words she used I note that she claims that she supports the "single sex exemptions" in the law. With one small exception there are no single sex exemptions that do not apply to persons with a Gender Recognition Certificate. There is also an understanding that people transitioning have access to female places if they are fulfilling the requirement to live in the target gender for two years.

Whether unwittingly or not she is refusing to recognise the clear legal rights of certain persons with a Y chromosome to occupy female areas. This is unlawful; as unlawful as excluding people on the grounds of race, gender or sexuality.


----------



## Santino (Mar 30, 2021)

kabbes said:


> I would go further, actually, and suggest that their experiences are mediated through their cultural tools, such that how they experience and what meaning they assign to it is _directly determined_ by their culture.
> 
> In turn, this means that experience _can_ be debated.  It isn’t something essential.


We are all being-with-others.


----------



## Santino (Mar 30, 2021)

Border Reiver said:


> Either that or I understand matters somewhat better than you do. My beliefs are firmly anchored in Epistemology and the Philosophy of Science. Are you aware of the concepts "Universals" and "Particulars".


Phil?


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Mar 30, 2021)

Santino said:


> We are all being-with-others.


Don't bring Heidegger into this. It's confused enough as it is.


----------



## Santino (Mar 30, 2021)

I think Heidegger is an extremely useful reference point actually. A lot of the heat generated by debates involving gender rests on the human propensity to imagine ourselves as having a fixed (or even flexible) essential nature, a thing rather than a process.


----------



## Athos (Mar 30, 2021)

Border Reiver said:


> Having read the actual words she used I note that she claims that she supports the "single sex exemptions" in the law. With one small exception there are no single sex exemptions that do not apply to persons with a Gender Recognition Certificate. There is also an understanding that people transitioning have access to female places if they are fulfilling the requirement to live in the target gender for two years.
> 
> Whether unwittingly or not she is refusing to recognise the clear legal rights of certain persons with a Y chromosome to occupy female areas. This is unlawful; as unlawful as excluding people on the grounds of race, gender or sexuality.



You're citing her support for lawful exemptions as evidence of a failure to recognise lawful rights?


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Mar 30, 2021)

Santino said:


> I think Heidegger is an extremely useful reference point actually. A lot of the heat generated by debates involving gender rests on the human propensity to imagine ourselves as having a fixed (or even flexible) essential nature, a thing rather than a process.


Fair enough. I agree with that last bit about things/processes. I nearly posted something along those lines earlier, but I'm not sure how fruitful the engagement can be and sometimes it is wisest just to stop. Contemporary ideas about physics also stress that the universe should be understood as processes, as interactions, rather than as a collection of things.


----------



## Border Reiver (Mar 30, 2021)

Santino said:


> Phil?


Sorry. "Phil"?


----------



## Border Reiver (Mar 30, 2021)

Athos said:


> You're citing her support for lawful exemptions as evidence of a failure to recognise lawful rights?


She potentially  implies that those rights are applicable to only cis-women; they are not in law. The rights and exemptions apply to all legal women, cis- as well as trans- (with or without a GRC).

It is necessary when arguing such rights to ascertain whether the person is inclusive of tran-women when defending "women's rights". Hence the toxic "trans- exclusionary".


----------



## Athos (Mar 30, 2021)

Border Reiver said:


> She potentially  implies that those rights are applicable to only cis-women; they are not in law. The rights and exemptions apply to all legal women, cis- as well as trans- (with or without a GRC).
> 
> It is necessary when arguing such rights to ascertain whether the person is inclusive of tran-women when defending "women's rights". Hence the toxic "trans- exclusionary".



Many of the exemptions specifically allow trans women to be treated differently from cis women.


----------



## xenon (Mar 30, 2021)

19force8 said:


> There's a scientific, philosophical and mathematical debate about natural sets. I don't understand it, but that's not really what's being talked about here, which is the idea that there's a natural order to things and when we choose to put them into groups it isn't just a whim, it's their proper place in "nature."
> 
> The problem is that nature isn't just black and white, there are shades of grey and exceptions.
> 
> ...



And where does this readjustment aid you in describing, mitigating, addressing, the repressions, prejudices faced by females?

It's all very clever to argue sex isn't a concrete category because salamanders change sex or there's intersex (what are these things defined against then.) But so what.

Trans women and natal women, clearly share, can be subject to, a lot of the same oppression, misogyny. But quite obviously, not all. Transmen and natal women share others.


----------



## co-op (Mar 30, 2021)

Border Reiver said:


> Having read the actual words she used I note that she claims that she supports the "single sex exemptions" in the law. With one small exception there are no single sex exemptions that do not apply to persons with a Gender Recognition Certificate. There is also an understanding that people transitioning have access to female places if they are fulfilling the requirement to live in the target gender for two years.
> 
> Whether unwittingly or not she is refusing to recognise the clear legal rights of certain persons with a Y chromosome to occupy female areas. This is unlawful; as unlawful as excluding people on the grounds of race, gender or sexuality.



As I understand it, the issue isn't whether single sex exemptions apply to people with a GRC - that has been the case now for nearly 20 years and there has been (afaik) very little problem with that. The problem is over self-ID replacing a more exacting GRC process - that means two things, (1) a potentially huge increase in the number of people who can claim access to sex-protected spaces and (2) a big difference in who can count as a transwoman, eg they can now be people who have male genitalia, identify as a woman on a part-time basis etc etc. 

Both of those are genuinely problematic issues for many many women - I think for obvious reasons.

So "preserving single sex exemptions" is about maintaining the status quo pre-self-ID, not about removing the protections currently given to tw with a GRC. But I'm sure there will be different strands of thought about this, but this ^^ is what I see most often.


----------



## Border Reiver (Mar 30, 2021)

Athos said:


> Many of the exemptions specifically allow trans women to be treated differently from cis women.


Please give an example in law for a person with a GRC. The only exemption I remember (I am now retired) is for women's refuges. Social groups are free to


Athos said:


> Many of the exemptions specifically allow trans women to be treated differently from cis women.



Please give an example for interactions involving goods,services,employment etc other than social groups. 

The only legal exception I remember (I am now retired) is women's refuges.


----------



## Border Reiver (Mar 30, 2021)

co-op said:


> As I understand it, the issue isn't whether single sex exemptions apply to people with a GRC - that has been the case now for nearly 20 years and there has been (afaik) very little problem with that. The problem is over self-ID replacing a more exacting GRC process - that means two things, (1) a potentially huge increase in the number of people who can claim access to sex-protected spaces and (2) a big difference in who can count as a transwoman, eg they can now be people who have male genitalia, identify as a woman on a part-time basis etc etc.
> 
> Both of those are genuinely problematic issues for many many women - I think for obvious reasons.
> 
> So "preserving single sex exemptions" is about maintaining the status quo pre-self-ID, not about removing the protections currently given to tw with a GRC. But I'm sure there will be different strands of thought about this, but this ^^ is what I see most often.



I have found that when questioned some people are unwilling to accept the rights of people with a GRC or current common law exemptions.

Genitalia is not an issue in law.


----------



## pseudonarcissus (Mar 30, 2021)

Has anyone here had first hand experience of feeling threatened or inconvenienced by a trans person using a single sex space?

There is a lot of heresay, and talk in the tabloids of what may or may not be happening in prisons, but I suspect this really is pretty much entirely a _theoretical_ problem. I'm not sure there are hoards of men "self-identifying" as female in order to invade the ladies' changing rooms. The (few) trans people I know would do anything to avoid a scene in a restroom.


----------



## Edie (Mar 30, 2021)

pseudonarcissus said:


> Has anyone here had first hand experience of feeling threatened or inconvenienced by a trans person using a single sex space?
> 
> There is a lot of heresay, and talk in the tabloids of what may or may not be happening in prisons, but I suspect this really is pretty much entirely a _theoretical_ problem. I'm not sure there are hoards of men "self-identifying" as female in order to invade the ladies' changing rooms. The (few) trans people I know would do anything to avoid a scene in a restroom.


I think there’s a lot of fear on both sides.


----------



## Athos (Mar 30, 2021)

Border Reiver said:


> Please give an example in law for a person with a GRC. The only exemption I remember (I am now retired) is for women's refuges. Social groups are free to
> 
> 
> Please give an example for interactions involving goods,services,employment etc other than social groups.
> ...



Insofar as gender-affected activities, see the explanatory note to the Act here:  Equality Act 2010 - Explanatory Notes

"_It also makes it *lawful to restrict participation of transsexual people* in such competitions if this is necessary to uphold fair or safe competition, but not otherwise._"


For occupational requirements, see here:  Equality Act 2010 - Explanatory Notes

"_The exception applies where being of a particular sex, race, disability, religion or belief, sexual orientation or age – or *not being a transsexual person*, married or a civil partner – is a requirement for the work, and the person whom it is applied to does not meet it (or, except in the case of sex, does not meet it to the reasonable satisfaction of the person who applied it)._"


For accommodation, see here:  Equality Act 2010 - Explanatory Notes

"_This paragraph provides an exception to the general prohibition of sex and *gender reassignment* discrimination._"


For single sex services, see here:  Equality Act 2010 - Explanatory Notes

"_This paragraph provides an exception to the general prohibition of sex and *gender reassignment* discrimination._"


----------



## Kevbad the Bad (Mar 30, 2021)

SpackleFrog said:


> Well by that criteria the whole thread gets us nowhere, because the purpose of the thread is simply to restate the disagreement by repeating that trans women are not women and that biological sex is all that matters as often as possible, no matter the level of tedium and annoyance caused.
> 
> "Some would say" is an interesting phrase by the way. "Some might say". No one on this thread has actually claimed you can identify as both genders, or 'whatever' but don't let that stop you. Are you going to ask every woman if their claim to womanhood is valid by the way, or just those you suspect might be trans?


Unfortunately I think you probably are right and this whole thread will get us nowhere.

As for what people say on this thread, I think it is more than reasonable to talk about what others may think, even those not on urban at all. Otherwise we would never get anywhere at all on any subject.


----------



## Knotted (Mar 30, 2021)

xenon said:


> And where does this readjustment aid you in describing, mitigating, addressing, the repressions, prejudices faced by females?
> 
> It's all very clever to argue sex isn't a concrete category because salamanders change sex or there's intersex (what are these things defined against then.) But so what.
> 
> Trans women and natal women, clearly share, can be subject to, a lot of the same oppression, misogyny. But quite obviously, not all. Transmen and natal women share others.



I think that succinctly summaries where we should all be on this. I wonder if there's anybody who disagrees with this and if not, I think we're done.

/thread


----------



## pseudonarcissus (Mar 30, 2021)

Edie said:


> I think there’s a lot of fear on both sides.


I'm not disputing that, based on the what the Daily Mail says, I'd be terrified, particularly if I had a young child. It just strikes my that the extreme polarisation that has taken place in the debate about trans rights perpetrates the fear, where as most of us confronted with a real life situation would do little more than raise an eyebrow and carry on. 
Sexual offences, including voyeurism, can, and should, be dealt with appropriately.


----------



## Looby (Mar 30, 2021)

pseudonarcissus said:


> Has anyone here had first hand experience of feeling threatened or inconvenienced by a trans person using a single sex space?
> 
> There is a lot of heresay, and talk in the tabloids of what may or may not be happening in prisons, but I suspect this really is pretty much entirely a _theoretical_ problem. I'm not sure there are hoards of men "self-identifying" as female in order to invade the ladies' changing rooms. The (few) trans people I know would do anything to avoid a scene in a restroom.


Never, in a personal or professional capacity where I have worked with trans people in accommodation projects. I have dealt with a vulnerable trans person being placed at risk in their accommodation.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Mar 30, 2021)

Athos said:


> Insofar as gender-affected activities, see the explanatory note to the Act here:  Equality Act 2010 - Explanatory Notes
> 
> "_It also makes it *lawful to restrict participation of transsexual people* in such competitions if this is necessary to uphold fair or safe competition, but not otherwise._"
> 
> ...


I've had to refer to this act a couple of times in the last few years, and generally speaking I think it's well framed and thought through, and does its job pretty well. These exemptions are well defined and sensible, seems to me. The act provides considerable protection to trans people - far more than existed before it - while retaining an acknowledgement of the areas in which sex differences need to be recognised.


----------



## Santino (Mar 30, 2021)

Knotted said:


> I think that succinctly summaries where we should all be on this. I wonder if there's anybody who disagrees with this and if not, I think we're done.
> 
> /thread


You're incredibly disingenuous. You've completely misunderstood the 'Gender Critical' position, and used a silly name for people with that position, and then insisted that in fact they don't have a position, and then got cross because people aren't being kind enough.


----------



## Kevbad the Bad (Mar 30, 2021)

Knotted said:


> Suppose we discover a long lost tribe whose hermaphrodite tendencies blow apart all fixed notions of sex.


That would indeed start some interesting discussions. I would suggest we start those conversations intently after you have discovered this long lost tribe. We might then find out even more about them, such as their predilection for pickled onions.


----------



## Border Reiver (Mar 30, 2021)

Athos said:


> Insofar as gender-affected activities, see the explanatory note to the Act here:  Equality Act 2010 - Explanatory Notes
> 
> "_It also makes it *lawful to restrict participation of transsexual people* in such competitions if this is necessary to uphold fair or safe competition, but not otherwise._"
> 
> ...



So what do those exceptions mean for say toilets and changing rooms which is the major bone of contention.


----------



## iveivan (Mar 30, 2021)

If a man is intent on harassing or assaulting a woman, what’s stopping him just invading the single sex space? No need to pretend to be a woman.

The whole argument that self identifying people should not be allowed in single sex spaces because there are bad people out there is so insulting to all trans people.


----------



## hitmouse (Mar 30, 2021)

co-op said:


> The reason for starting this thread wasn't to lecture anyone about feminism and how to do it properly but a rush of blood to the head at seeing that Vicky Hubble had been banned off twitter for "transphobia" for the saying what's quoted in the OP and just being completely baffled at how large sections of the left can look at what she wrote and think "ah yes, that's the enemy, she's _obviously_ motivated by hatred and bigotry".
> 
> I am just baffled and depressed more than I can say about this. I know serious left wing people who are seriously talking about voting tory over this. WTAF?


Maybe take it up with the people who are talking about voting tory, rather than the people who aren't?

And if we're going back to the quote discussed in the OP, I still think you're using a really unhelpful set of criteria. There are some statements that are obviously motivated by hatred or a desire to restrict people's legal rights, "gas the kikes, race war now", "send them back", "get back in the kitchen", whatever. I don't think the stuff in the OP is comparable to that, but I don't think that's a good standard to use.

Think about these statements instead: "calm down dear, don't get so emotional", "go on love, give us a smile", "do you think that maybe you just haven't met the right man yet?", "oh, I thought you were really surprisingly articulate, considering". And so on. These statements are not "_obviously_ motivated by hatred and bigotry", as you put it. But they're all shitty things to say and you shouldn't say them. I think the stuff in the OP is on a par with most of those.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Mar 30, 2021)

Knotted said:


> Does it matter politically? Suppose we discover a long lost tribe whose hermaphrodite tendencies blow apart all fixed notions of sex.



This post shows me that you haven't understood a thing I've been saying on this matter. 

But I'll answer your initial question. Yes, sadly the statement 'sex and gender are both constructs' does matter politically. The attempt to place sex and gender on the same level as socially constructed ideas is done to a particular end.


----------



## Athos (Mar 30, 2021)

iveivan said:


> If a man is intent on harassing or assaulting a woman, what’s stopping him just invading the single sex space? No need to pretend to be a woman.


By that logic, why not do away with them altogether?


----------



## Border Reiver (Mar 30, 2021)

Athos said:


> Insofar as gender-affected activities, see the explanatory note to the Act here:  Equality Act 2010 - Explanatory Notes
> 
> "_It also makes it *lawful to restrict participation of transsexual people* in such competitions if this is necessary to uphold fair or safe competition, but not otherwise._"
> 
> ...


The killer question is: "If a person with male genitalia and a GRC is using a women's  changing room, what are your rights over hers?"


----------



## iveivan (Mar 30, 2021)

Athos said:


> By that logic, why not do away with them altogether?


I’d rather we got rid of bigots


----------



## pseudonarcissus (Mar 30, 2021)

hitmouse said:


> I think the stuff in the OP is on a par with most of those.


_"I believe in biological reality and do not subscribe to the notion of gender identity especially when it damages women and girls"_
I can see this as being problematic. This person does not "subscribe to the notion" of transgender people, and then claims that such a notion would ("necessarily" is implied here) damage cis-genedered women and girls.


----------



## Border Reiver (Mar 30, 2021)

Athos said:


> By that logic, why not do away with them altogether?


That is the point. Trans sexuality is not the point. Male violence is.


----------



## SpackleFrog (Mar 30, 2021)

co-op said:


> But as Kevbad the Bad has said; if I can simply identify into womanhood, who are you or anyone to tell me that I'm a "man telling women how to do feminism"?  Or maybe - like Eddie Izzard  - I have a girl mode and a boy mode and I flip between them and some of my posts are by a woman, some by a man?



You can't 'simply' identify into womanhood though. The process takes two years and because of people like you the changes to the Gender Recognition Act have been dropped so you will also need to provide medical evidence of gender dysphoria and be signed off by a doctor. Which is what all this is actually about remember - that despite a government consultation that showed 80% of people support removing the requirement for medical evidence to transition, we continue to demand trans people provide medical evidence.

Eddie Izzard is hardly a representative example, is she? And in any case she's quite clear that she wants to be treated as a woman from now on - not to switch between boy and girl mode as you claim. Eddie Izzard: Comedian and actor opts to use pronouns 'she' and 'her'

There are trans people and there are non-binary people but there are not people demanding to be allowed to switch gender on a whim as you claim.



co-op said:


> I am just baffled and depressed more than I can say about this. I know serious left wing people who are seriously talking about voting tory over this. WTAF?



Again, this is a complete fabrication. There are no serious left wing people considering voting Tory; that's completely oxymoronic.


----------



## Border Reiver (Mar 30, 2021)

hitmouse said:


> Maybe take it up with the people who are talking about voting tory, rather than the people who aren't?
> 
> And if we're going back to the quote discussed in the OP, I still think you're using a really unhelpful set of criteria. There are some statements that are obviously motivated by hatred or a desire to restrict people's legal rights, "gas the kikes, race war now", "send them back", "get back in the kitchen", whatever. I don't think the stuff in the OP is comparable to that, but I don't think that's a good standard to use.
> 
> Think about these statements instead: "calm down dear, don't get so emotional", "go on love, give us a smile", "do you think that maybe you just haven't met the right man yet?", "oh, I thought you were really surprisingly articulate, considering". And so on. These statements are not "_obviously_ motivated by hatred and bigotry", as you put it. But they're all shitty things to say and you shouldn't say them. I think the stuff in the OP is on a par with most of those.



Except it promotes denying legal rights to a group of protected persons. Equivalent doing it to ethnic minorities.


----------



## SpackleFrog (Mar 30, 2021)

co-op said:


> As I understand it, the issue isn't whether single sex exemptions apply to people with a GRC - that has been the case now for nearly 20 years and there has been (afaik) very little problem with that. The problem is over self-ID replacing a more exacting GRC process - that means two things, (1) a potentially huge increase in the number of people who can claim access to sex-protected spaces and (2) a big difference in who can count as a transwoman, eg they can now be people who have male genitalia, identify as a woman on a part-time basis etc etc.



More lies. It's not possible to identify as a woman on a part time basis, and it was previously possible for people with male genitalia to obtain a GRC. The only proposed change which has been dropped is that trans people no longer need a medical diagnosis of dysphoria. 

It really riles me that you come onto these boards with the explicit intention of lieing to stir up shit over this issue. I wouldn't have a problem with you saying you didn't get it or you don't like it or even if you were just straightforwardly denying the existence of trans people or gender dysphoria despite the millennia of anthropological evidence. But you set out to lie to stir shit up and honestly I would be very happy to see you banned from these boards.


----------



## Border Reiver (Mar 30, 2021)

SpackleFrog said:


> You can't 'simply' identify into womanhood though. The process takes two years and because of people like you the changes to the Gender Recognition Act have been dropped so you will also need to provide medical evidence of gender dysphoria and be signed off by a doctor. Which is what all this is actually about remember - that despite a government consultation that showed 80% of people support removing the requirement for medical evidence to transition, we continue to demand trans people provide medical evidence.



There is also common law that allows people with a good excuse to be in a single sex space. There is no law excluding persons of one sex entering spaces intended for the other sex.

(edited to clarify common law.)


----------



## Border Reiver (Mar 30, 2021)

pseudonarcissus said:


> _"I believe in biological reality and do not subscribe to the notion of gender identity especially when it damages women and girls"_
> I can see this as being problematic. This person does not "subscribe to the notion" of transgender people, and then claims that such a notion would ("necessarily" is implied here) damage cis-genedered women and girls.


Imagine saying that you do not subscribe to the notion of certain ethnicity's rights being protected!


----------



## smokedout (Mar 30, 2021)

co-op said:


> As I understand it, the issue isn't whether single sex exemptions apply to people with a GRC - that has been the case now for nearly 20 years and there has been (afaik) very little problem with that. The problem is over self-ID replacing a more exacting GRC process - that means two things, (1) a potentially huge increase in the number of people who can claim access to sex-protected spaces and (2) a big difference in who can count as a transwoman, eg they can now be people who have male genitalia, identify as a woman on a part-time basis etc etc.
> 
> Both of those are genuinely problematic issues for many many women - I think for obvious reasons.
> 
> So "preserving single sex exemptions" is about maintaining the status quo pre-self-ID, not about removing the protections currently given to tw with a GRC. But I'm sure there will be different strands of thought about this, but this ^^ is what I see most often.



Well after several years of discussing this you still understand it completely wrongly.

The legal position is that  anyone with the protected characteristic of gender reassignment, which means has undergone, is undergoing or is intended to undergo gender transition is protected under the Equality Act and in most cases can use spaces inline with their gender.  This has been the case since 1999 and these rights were strengthened in the 2010 Equality Act.  Trans people have been self-IDing into single sex spaces for decades.

This protection comes with exemptions, which apply to all strands of the Equality Act which is that discrimination is permitted if it is a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim, or in the case of employment if it is a reasonable requirement for the role - so a white actor could not sue if they were refused an audition to play Malcolm X for example.  These are what the gender critical movement calls sex based rights, although really the rights given in the Equality Act are that you should not to be discriminated against due to sex (or gender reassignment, race, sexuality etc) except in very limited circumstances.  A gender recoginition certificate does not protect you from these exemptions, neither does it grant you special rights - although it does provide protection in your legal (aquired) sex - so a trans woman with a GRC is legally a woman and could join a class action sex discrimination case against her employer over equal pay for example.  

The law is a bit of a bodge in this area and the main problem is that far from trans people attempting to invade women's spaces there is virtually no case law which establishes what would be a proportionate and legitimate reason for discrimination and none which has reached a higher court.  It is near certain that discriminating against trans people in toilets or enclosed changing room provision is probably illegal, and it is probably legal to discriminate against trans women in the provision of single sex services for sexual violence for example.  But this should only be done on a case by case basis, as opposed to a blanket policy, and efforts should me made to avoid discrimination if possible, such as offering a service in a different way.  This has been the approach taken by much of the refuge and VAWG sector, who are in most cases trans inclusive but reserve the right to invoke the exemption in some cases.  And this has pretty much worked for years, but until a case comes before the courts then the legality or otherwise of discrimination relating to trans people and single sex spaces is really a bit unknown - hence the endless arguments.  But gender recognition certificates are not even mentioned in the Equality Act and have little bearing on who can access single sex spaces, although they may influence other areas - such as whether you should say you are a man or a woman in the census, but again this is all untested by law.


----------



## Border Reiver (Mar 30, 2021)

smokedout said:


> Well after several years of discussing this you still understand it completely wrongly.
> 
> The legal position is that  anyone with the protected characteristic of gender reassignment, which means has undergone, is undergoing or is intended to undergo gender transition is protected under the Equality Act and in most cases can use spaces inline with their gender.  This has been the case since 1999 and these rights were strengthened in the 2010 Equality Act.  Trans people have been self-IDing into single sex spaces for decades.
> 
> ...


Where statute law and common law is silent, no crime is committed. There is no prohibition on people of one sex being in the space of another's unless further facts intervene. Same spies to public nudity.


----------



## SpackleFrog (Mar 30, 2021)

Kevbad the Bad said:


> Unfortunately I think you probably are right and this whole thread will get us nowhere.
> 
> As for what people say on this thread, I think it is more than reasonable to talk about what others may think, even those not on urban at all. Otherwise we would never get anywhere at all on any subject.



Some people - most people actually - have already wrapped their heads around this stuff. Some people don't want to and aren't going to.


----------



## belboid (Mar 30, 2021)

Cba I read the last couple of pages, but isn’t it refreshing to have a conversation about trans rights without just pointlessly going over exactly the same ground again, with no false equivalences or wholly circular arguments?

ohh...


----------



## Knotted (Mar 30, 2021)

Santino said:


> You're incredibly disingenuous. You've completely misunderstood the 'Gender Critical' position, and used a silly name for people with that position, and then insisted that in fact they don't have a position, and then got cross because people aren't being kind enough.



Just remind you it was Co-op who introduced the whole non-debate about whether sex is real in the OP. The stupid troll questions worked, and we've six or seven (I believe) cis men lecturing each other about biology. Well done all.


----------



## Athos (Mar 30, 2021)

Border Reiver said:


> The killer question is: "If a person with male genitalia and a GRC is using a women's  changing room, what are your rights over hers?"



It would only be lawful to exclude a trans woman if that was an objectively reasonable and proportionate response. Which I'd imagine would be a very exceptional case, since trans women have been using those spaces for years with no issues. I think the law is in the right place in this.


----------



## Athos (Mar 30, 2021)

iveivan said:


> I’d rather we got rid of bigots


I'd prefer we got rid of the threat to women (cis and trans) of male violence, AND bigots.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Mar 30, 2021)

This is the problem. Who are the bigots? Is Keira Bell a bigot? Anyone going to go there? Because by the logic of some here, she is.


----------



## SpackleFrog (Mar 30, 2021)

littlebabyjesus said:


> This is the problem. Who are the bigots? Is Keira Bell a bigot? Anyone going to go there? Because by the logic of some here, she is.



Yes, as has been pointed out.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Mar 30, 2021)

SpackleFrog said:


> Yes, as has been pointed out.


See I think that is a shameful thing to say. Really, really shameful.


----------



## iveivan (Mar 30, 2021)

From this thread, I see bigots like to follow a scattergun approach to discriminate against trans people and attack them from all sides


----------



## hitmouse (Mar 30, 2021)

Border Reiver said:


> Except it promotes denying legal rights to a group of protected persons. Equivalent doing it to ethnic minorities.


Oh yeah, I certainly wasn't trying to defend the stuff in the OP, just to point out how unhelpful the standard Co-op wanted to measure it by was.


----------



## two sheds (Mar 30, 2021)

smokedout said:


> Well after several years of discussing this you still understand it completely wrongly.
> 
> The legal position is that  anyone with the protected characteristic of gender reassignment, which means has undergone, is undergoing or is intended to undergo gender transition is protected under the Equality Act and in most cases can use spaces inline with their gender.  This has been the case since 1999 and these rights were strengthened in the 2010 Equality Act.  Trans people have been self-IDing into single sex spaces for decades.
> 
> ...


That's really clear and helpful, thanks


----------



## smokedout (Mar 30, 2021)

littlebabyjesus said:


> See I think that is a shameful thing to say. Really, really shameful.



Why?  Do her circumstances give her a free pass or something?  She vocally supported Posie Parker who was whipping up MAGA type men 'who carry' to start using women's toilets, she is opposed to all trans health care not just treatment for minors and she chose a legal team, and expert witnesses from the Christian conservative right.  She regular posts transphobic misinformation and she supports transphobic groups who oppose all existing trans rights.  I'm sorry she made a mistake, and let's not forget the vast amount of treatment she had was when she was an adult, I fully support detransitioners and removing the stigma around detransition, but that doesn't mean she should now be immune from any and all criticism no matter what her opinions.


----------



## Knotted (Mar 30, 2021)

littlebabyjesus said:


> See I think that is a shameful thing to say. Really, really shameful.



She's part of _that_ millieu, there's a dozen tell tale signs in her statement. Co-op is also. On this thread we've learnt about "gender critical feminists" defending trans conversion therapy. That's therapy that reinforces gender stereotypes a part from anything, there's nothing gender critical or feminist about that. I don't think labels are going to help, but that's the sort of thing we're looking at. Conversion therapy.


----------



## Knotted (Mar 30, 2021)

Sorry mixed up Keira Bell with Vicky Hubble in the OP. I don't know enough about Bell to comment.


----------



## Border Reiver (Mar 30, 2021)

Athos said:


> It would only be lawful to exclude a trans woman if that was an objectively reasonable and proportionate response. Which I'd imagine would be a very exceptional case, since trans women have been using those spaces for years with no issues. I think the law is in the right place in this.


That is why it is a killer question. It exhibits intention to discriminate against people in a prot free class. Which gets you banned from social platforms.


----------



## Border Reiver (Mar 30, 2021)

littlebabyjesus said:


> This is the problem. Who are the bigots? Is Keira Bell a bigot? Anyone going to go there? Because by the logic of some here, she is.


Bigot is a term to be avoided if debate is to remain rational.


----------



## Athos (Mar 30, 2021)

Border Reiver said:


> That is why it is a killer question. It exhibits intention to discriminate against people in a prot free class. Which gets you banned from social platforms.



I think that's a overly simplistic.  I happen to feel the law is in broadly the right place when it comes to balancing the rights of females and trans people, but there are plenty of people who'd like to see it move in one direction or another - the removal versus the strengthening of the sex-based excemptions.  I don't agree with them, but I don't think they're all bigots (though some are), and suspect that kicking them all off Twitter just polarises the issue more, even driving people into the arms of extremists.


----------



## co-op (Mar 30, 2021)

Knotted said:


> On this thread we've learnt about "gender critical feminists" defending trans conversion therapy. That's therapy that reinforces gender stereotypes a part from anything



Gender critical pov is never in favour of either conversion therapy nor gender stereotyping, you seem really confused on this point. 

There has been an argument about whether or not permitting any discussion with young people presenting as trans except "affirmation" counts as conversion therapy - TRAs seem to say it does. And in taking this line it is them who are "reinforcing gender stereotypes" because they are often going to be transing young gay people into the opposite sex, thereby rendering them heterosexual. That looks to me more like gay conversion, albeit it isn't done with "therapy" but with hormones and surgery.


----------



## Athos (Mar 30, 2021)

co-op said:


> There has been an argument about whether or not permitting any discussion with young people presenting as trans except "affirmation" counts as conversion therapy - TRAs seem to say it does.



The thing is, your position is weakened by having previously claimed that is Stonewall's position, then failing to back it up.


----------



## Border Reiver (Mar 30, 2021)

Athos said:


> I think that's a overly simplistic.  I happen to feel the law is in broadly the right place when it comes to balancing the rights of females and trans people, but there are plenty of people who'd like to see it move in one direction or another - the removal versus the strengthening of the sex-based excemptions.  I don't agree with them, but I don't think they're all bigots (though some are), and suspect that kicking them all off Twitter just polarises the issue more, even driving people into the arms of extremists.



I have not used the term 'bigot'. 

The question determines who is unwilling to respect the legal rights of trans-women.


----------



## Athos (Mar 30, 2021)

Border Reiver said:


> I have not used the term 'bigot'.
> 
> The question determines who is unwilling to respect the legal rights of trans-women.



Does it though?  Many people are willing respect the law at any given time, but lobby for the law to be changed.


----------



## Border Reiver (Mar 30, 2021)

Athos said:


> Does it though?  Many people are willing respect what the law currently says, but lobby for the law to be changed.



That is their right. They probably think that many of my views differ from theirs in an objectionable way. Lobbying for a law change is not a problem.


----------



## Santino (Mar 30, 2021)

Knotted said:


> Just remind you it was Co-op who introduced the whole non-debate about whether sex is real in the OP. The stupid troll questions worked, and we've six or seven (I believe) cis men lecturing each other about biology. Well done all.


_He_ started it, Miss!


----------



## Athos (Mar 30, 2021)

Border Reiver said:


> That is their right. They probably think that many of my views differ from theirs in an objectionable way. Lobbying for a law change is not a problem.



It may or may not be problematic - depends on the content of the changes they're pursuing.

But it does mean your "killer question" is actually less than lethal.


----------



## Shechemite (Mar 30, 2021)

Personally I think what the gender identity/acceptance stuff does is push the issue of how society ought to respond to mental distress. To best support a person with mental distress, to what extent should we be 1) addressing their social condition),  2) ‘treating’ their distress, 3) affirming their beliefs

I’m not trans. I don’t know what it is to live with gender dysphoria. I imagine its crap (as indeed is dealing with the discrimination that goes with it.)

(edited for clarity)


----------



## SpackleFrog (Mar 30, 2021)

Athos said:


> I...suspect that kicking them all off Twitter just polarises the issue more, even driving people into the arms of extremists.



Thats of course a fair point to raise - Twitter is a private company that makes decisions about who is expressing bigotry and who isn't and I agree that is not a good thing.

I'd still say what is in the OP is bigotry, whether it is intentionally expressing bigotry or unknowingly repeating bigotry as fact. In the same way we might say people expressing everyday racist views are perhaps unknowingly expressing/repeating bigotry without necessarily having bad intentions.


----------



## smokedout (Mar 30, 2021)

co-op said:


> Gender critical pov is never in favour of either conversion therapy nor gender stereotyping, you seem really confused on this point.
> 
> There has been an argument about whether or not permitting any discussion with young people presenting as trans except "affirmation" counts as conversion therapy - TRAs seem to say it does.



Conversion therapy, in this context, is a form of therapy which seeks to convert a trans person into a non trans person.  To cure them of being trans in effect. Opposing this does not mean opposing all discussion about the nature, reason for or intended outcomes of a gender dysphoric patient, it means opposing therapies which set out to prevent them being trans or which oppose a trans identity.  If a patient presents as trans, at any age, it means that a therapist doesn't immediately say you're probably just gay or a lesbian really, or tells them they aren't trans, or attempts to persuade them they aren't trans, or shouldn't be trans.  It doesn't mean they can't have wide ranging discussions about the narure of that, it doesn't mean they should push for treatment, and also, and most importantly it means should the patient's identity change then the therapist should be equally supportive of that.  Their identity, and how they experience it, lies with the patient, not the therapist's opinions or ideology.

I've posted examples of what gender identity conversion therapy has looked like in the past..  There are no established medical protocols or published literature that supports this or any other attempt to change a trans identity.  And those who have had these practices inflicted on them have testified as to the harm done.

The claim that this will lead to gay and lesbian or gender nonconforming kids being transed is complete bullshit.  Contrary to claims LGB people are being erased there are more young people identifying as LGB than at any point in written history.  Like much of GC ideology, these claims are based on something that could possibly happen, but which is highly unlikely to and which hasn't happened so far.  Almost every aspect of the GC argument is speculative, and not just that but always speculates on the worst possible outcome, no matter how implausible or unsupported by what has gone before.  So men will start pretending to be trans to abuse women, LGB kids will all be transed, trans inclusive women's shortlists will end with boards of 50% trans 50% men, no cis woman will ever win another gold medal, all of the trans kids being treated will live lives full of anguish or regret over their mutilated bodies, the census results will be meaningless, there will be no point doing gender pay auditing and ultimately that women will be erased or replaced by as little as using language which is inclusive of trans men in some healthcare settings.  All of these claims are complete bullshit.  None of them comes with any evidence and in fact in countries which have been more trans inclusive none have happened.  It's a bit like when someone claims that accepting refuges means we'll be inundated by undercover suicide bombers intent on destroying the nation, or that any mild concessions to Islam such as serving halal food means sharia law and Islamification of the UK is now inevitable. 

That doesn't mean there is no debate to be had, but it should not be one based on ever more lurid scare mongering.  Gender neutral toilets for example would not mean the complete erasure of women and toilets turned into dens of predators but that we'll be a bit more like somewhere like Sweden.  Some people might not like that and fair enough, let's talk about that, let's talk to the VAWG sector, and the workers and residents, and have reasoned discussions amongst those it affects  in sport but not base every conversation on the threat of imminent dystopia caused by a predatory 'ideology' that is seeking to destroy women and children and gays and lesbians and everything that is sacred and good (like prisons and the Olympics).  Because that's actually a pretty offensive position to begin with from the trans perspective which is why a lot of trans people do not choose to engage in this debate.

Finally we can only speculate why some on the left have been seduced by such spurious arguments that we would recognise as disingenuous bigotry if applied to any other group.  But it seems no coincidence that these attitudes are far more prevalent amongst those of us who grew up in a period when trans people were virtually invisible in public life and usually presented in culture as either the punchline to a joke, a highly sexualised victim, or a serial killer.  A generation that despite a few subcultures was raised in an environment in which gender nonconformity was viewed with suspicion - particularly any form of femininity in those born physically male which was policed with derision and even violence.  A deeply transphobic enviroment in other words and I find it hard to believe that has had no bearing on the attitudes of some involved in this debate.


----------



## hitmouse (Mar 30, 2021)

MadeInBedlam said:


> Personally I think what the gender identity/acceptance stuff does is push the issue of how society ought to respond to mental distress. Do we beat support a person with mental distress by 1) addressing their social condition), or 2) by ‘treating’ their distress, or 3) affirming their beliefs


I don't think it's either/or, is it? Cos if we have to pick just one, and we choose option 1, does that not mean we're back to "well, after the revolution it'll be reet"?


----------



## Shechemite (Mar 30, 2021)

Yeah wasn’t meant to set it up as either/or. Poor wording on my part


----------



## Shechemite (Mar 30, 2021)

My point is that the politics of dysphoria aren’t separate from the wider politics of mental health.


----------



## Edie (Mar 30, 2021)

MadeInBedlam said:


> My point is that the politics of dysphoria aren’t separate from the wider politics of mental health.


My brother who has “schizophrenia” (episodes of psychosis all his adult life) understands his mental illness as a kind of dysphoria with society/knowing how to be. By that I mean that he doesn’t know how to be. It’s hard to describe without it being too personal and confidential so I won’t.


----------



## Shechemite (Mar 30, 2021)

Yeah, my experience is very much having to put a lot of energy/take a lot of risks to learn how to be (a work in progress).


----------



## 8ball (Mar 30, 2021)

Edie said:


> My brother who has “schizophrenia” (episodes of psychosis all his adult life) understands his mental illness as a kind of dysphoria with society/knowing how to be. By that I mean that he doesn’t know how to be. It’s hard to describe without it being too personal and confidential so I won’t.



Dysphoria with society?
Not being facetious but sounds like _not_ having that would be a concern.


----------



## Shechemite (Mar 30, 2021)

Because?


----------



## Knotted (Mar 30, 2021)

Santino said:


> _He_ started it, Miss!



The point is that this whole bullshit discussion derives from "gender critical" provocations, not the other way round.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Mar 30, 2021)

Knotted said:


> The point is that this whole bullshit discussion derives from "gender critical" provocations, not the other way round.


Not true. Keira Bell is an example of how this is not true. Labelled a bigot by some for finding a way to deal with dysphoria that involved downplaying gender rather than essentialising it. I find it extraordinary that people should attack Keira Bell, but there it is. There is an absence of empathy and solidarity on display from all sides here.


----------



## Shechemite (Mar 30, 2021)

Safety for me but not for thee.


----------



## Knotted (Mar 30, 2021)

co-op said:


> Gender critical pov is never in favour of either conversion therapy nor gender stereotyping, you seem really confused on this point.
> 
> There has been an argument about whether or not permitting any discussion with young people presenting as trans except "affirmation" counts as conversion therapy - TRAs seem to say it does. And in taking this line it is them who are "reinforcing gender stereotypes" because they are often going to be transing young gay people into the opposite sex, thereby rendering them heterosexual. That looks to me more like gay conversion, albeit it isn't done with "therapy" but with hormones and surgery.



I wasn't going to press you on your hopeless response to my question about where eg. Stonewall say this sort of thing. I actually felt embarrassed for you. But you're back with "TRAs _seem _to say it does". Can I just call bullshit on this until you provide some evidence.

As for the "gender critical pov", I would suggest that for many it's an ideology of convenience, just another provocation and besides people can hold all sorts of contradictions in their heads. You think this whole "why, oh why are they shutting down these conversion therapy centres" talk is not a defence of conversion therapy? It's difficult to tell whether you are being dishonest or naïve at this point.


----------



## Shechemite (Mar 30, 2021)

Is there a gender critical perspective that isn’t transphobic?


----------



## Knotted (Mar 30, 2021)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Not true. Keira Bell is an example of how this is not true. Labelled a bigot by some for finding a way to deal with dysphoria that involved downplaying gender rather than essentialising it. I find it extraordinary that people should attack Keira Bell, but there it is. There is an absence of empathy and solidarity on display from all sides here.



I'm less concerned about what she's saying than who she's allying with.


----------



## Louis MacNeice (Mar 30, 2021)

Border Reiver said:


> Imagine saying that you do not subscribe to the notion of certain ethnicity's rights being protected!



I can imagine that. I have imagined that. Indeed I have acted on it.

Cheers - Louis MacNeice


----------



## Border Reiver (Mar 30, 2021)

Athos said:


> It may or may not be problematic - depends on the content of the changes they're pursuing.
> 
> But it does mean your "killer question" is actually less than lethal.


Not if determining the real views of the person on the subject.


----------



## Border Reiver (Mar 30, 2021)

8ball said:


> Dysphoria with society?
> Not being facetious but sounds like _not_ having that would be a concern.


Dysphoria applies to affect (mood) not cognition. One aspect of "schizophrenia" is affect but most is cognitive.


----------



## Border Reiver (Mar 30, 2021)

co-op said:


> Gender critical pov is never in favour of either conversion therapy nor gender stereotyping, you seem really confused on this point.
> 
> There has been an argument about whether or not permitting any discussion with young people presenting as trans except "affirmation" counts as conversion therapy - TRAs seem to say it does. And in taking this line it is them who are "reinforcing gender stereotypes" because they are often going to be transing young gay people into the opposite sex, thereby rendering them heterosexual. That looks to me more like gay conversion, albeit it isn't done with "therapy" but with hormones and surgery.



As far as organisations of professional therapists are concerned, "Conversion Therapy" only applies to sexual object, not gender identity.


----------



## 8ball (Mar 30, 2021)

MadeInBedlam said:


> Because?



It is no measure of health to be well-adjusted to a sick society.

<Google says that’s a Krishnamurti quote - I thought it was someone else>


----------



## Edie (Mar 30, 2021)

Border Reiver said:


> Dysphoria applies to affect (mood) not cognition. One aspect of "schizophrenia" is affect but most is cognitive.


That’s certainly contentious and not the widely held viewed. Sure, cognitive components of schizophrenia are there. But negative symptoms (anhedonia, flat affect, apathy, poverty of speech- my bro has this a lot) are probably the most life effecting. And of course so called positive symptoms (hallucinations, delusions) the most obvious and often affect-driven (paranoid, or manic, or dysthymic). Thought disorder can be seen as a cognitive symptom, but certainly isn’t always present with psychosis.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Mar 30, 2021)

yeah, anyone making grand statements about mental health issues probably is to be distrusted tbh. One of the first things to acknowledge is how fucking much we don't understand.

wrt gender dysphoria specifically, it is clearly a mix of affect and cognition. The mental distress is accompanied by the feeling of a mismatch between body and mind, which necessarily involves cognition. It's a false division.


----------



## hitmouse (Mar 30, 2021)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Not true. Keira Bell is an example of how this is not true. Labelled a bigot by some for finding a way to deal with dysphoria that involved downplaying gender rather than essentialising it. I find it extraordinary that people should attack Keira Bell, but there it is. There is an absence of empathy and solidarity on display from all sides here.


That's not what people are actually saying, though, is it? Like this is what smokedout said:


smokedout said:


> Why?  Do her circumstances give her a free pass or something?  She vocally supported Posie Parker who was whipping up MAGA type men 'who carry' to start using women's toilets, she is opposed to all trans health care not just treatment for minors and she chose a legal team, and expert witnesses from the Christian conservative right.  She regular posts transphobic misinformation and she supports transphobic groups who oppose all existing trans rights.  I'm sorry she made a mistake, and let's not forget the vast amount of treatment she had was when she was an adult, I fully support detransitioners and removing the stigma around detransition, but that doesn't mean she should now be immune from any and all criticism no matter what her opinions.


I don't think that stuff is just reducible to "finding a way to deal with dysphoria that involved downplaying gender rather than essentialising it". I don't care how people deal with their dysphoria, I wish them good luck in whatever works best for them, but that's not the same as working politically with Posie Parker and the Christian right (if those even count as two separate things).


MadeInBedlam said:


> Is there a gender critical perspective that isn’t transphobic?


Depends how you define gender critical, innit. Red and Black Leeds, Gender Nihilism, bleedin' Baedan and all that lot are all clearly critical of gender. But if you define it as "stuff floating around in the LGB Alliance/Women's Place/Posie Parker/Hands Across The Aisle/Women’s Liberation Front swamp", then no, I'm not sure there can be.


----------



## elbows (Mar 30, 2021)

With schizophrenia the variations in extent and timing/progression of the mood aspects are one of the reasons there is currently a bewildering array of different classifications available when we look below the surface.

Schizoaffective disorders, hebephrenic schizophrenia, post-schizophrenic depression and residual schizophrenia to name a few.

Chuck in a bunch of others, including those involving people whose history makes it more likely that a schizoid personality disorder is the diagnosis eventually settled upon, and we have quite a messy picture. One I would certainly highlight if trying to discuss the idea that these classifications have less to do with distinctly different underlying causes, and more to do with typical human attempts to classify things so that the societal, medical etc response to them can be standardised.

Perhaps as far as broader societal understanding goes, more awareness of some of the detail of paranoid schizophrenia and catatonic schizophrenia compared to the various other forms is what causes some to underestimate the significance of things like blunted affects and inappropriate affect as significant aspects.


----------



## elbows (Mar 30, 2021)

The wikipedia page for dysphoria currently includes this bit:



> The current edition (DSM-5) of the _Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders_ uses the term "gender dysphoria" where it previously referred to "gender identity disorder", making it clear that they no longer consider the gender identity to be disordered, but rather the emotional state of distress which results from the gender identity.








						Dysphoria - Wikipedia
					






					en.wikipedia.org


----------



## SpackleFrog (Mar 30, 2021)

littlebabyjesus said:


> See I think that is a shameful thing to say. Really, really shameful.



Why? Look, I feel sorry for her, I'm sorry she regrets her transition and feels like people should have stopped her transitioning etc. It might be bigotry that is understandable in context. But it doesn't follow that she gets a pass for cheerleading scaremongering about trans women being rapists or saying no trans children should get medical support. Its still a massively unhelpful intervention.

Once more though, self ID is getting lumped in with medical treatment and its not helpful. Someone who is going to take medication should be fully informed of the consequences and give informed consent. That doesn't mean someone who wants to go through the transition process should have to have a doctor sign off on it.


----------



## bimble (Mar 30, 2021)

Lately my main feeling is that I hope I live long enough to see what things are like on the other side of this spite-filled shitfest, I mean maybe a generation down the line, what will it all look like. I think that it could go various ways, we can’t see because we’re in the eye of the storm sort of (well not me personally but you know, those directly impacted or working in this field). On that sort of timescale I’m pretty optimistic, in a few different directions.


----------



## Shechemite (Mar 30, 2021)

elbows said:


> The wikipedia page for dysphoria currently includes this bit:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



how is the difference between dysphoria and specifically dysphoria regarding our sexed bodies and a gendered society? How is this measured? Is my dysphoria (which includes ‘severe unease and discomfort’ with both my body and gendered society) not gender dysphoria? Is it because I don’t believe I have gender dysphoria (I’m autistic, it’s a nightmare lol) or is it an ‘objective distinction’? Does the ‘global’ nature of my dysphoria rule me out of being DX’d with GD?


----------



## Shechemite (Mar 30, 2021)

SpackleFrog said:


> feels like people should have stopped her transitioning etc.



you’re sorry she feels that way? How very NHS.

Should there be any safeguards against minors having treatment they wish to have?


----------



## SpackleFrog (Mar 30, 2021)

MadeInBedlam said:


> you’re sorry she feels that way? How very NHS.
> 
> Should there be any safeguards against minors having treatment they wish to have?



Yes of course and there are. Whats your point?


----------



## bimble (Mar 30, 2021)

SpackleFrog said:


> Yes of course and there are. Whats your point?


Do you think in Bell’s case it was an unusual lapse of normal procedure and so by mistake a not-really-trans person slipped through the net and got treatment they shouldn’t have been given  ?


----------



## SpackleFrog (Mar 30, 2021)

MadeInBedlam  did you even read my post?



SpackleFrog said:


> Someone who is going to take medication should be fully informed of the consequences and give informed consent.


----------



## elbows (Mar 30, 2021)

MadeInBedlam said:


> how is the difference between dysphoria and specifically dysphoria regarding our sexed bodies and a gendered society? How is this measured? Is my dysphoria (which includes ‘severe unease and discomfort’ with both my body and gendered society) not gender dysphoria? Is it because I don’t believe I have gender dysphoria (I’m autistic, it’s a nightmare lol) or is it an ‘objective distinction’? Does the ‘global’ nature of my dysphoria rule me out of being DX’d with GD?



I dont have useful answers.

Just a general point about how attempts to classify things inevitably ends up saying things about aspects of the society attempting the classification, including when they attempt to move with the times and incorporate an evolution of values, attempts to accomodate people etc by updating things, adjusting language and concepts.

I always find the ICD-10 entry for F20.6, 'Simple schizophrenia' to be an interesting hint of what I'm trying to get at, although it relates a bit more to what I said earlier than my main point in this post.



> *Simple schizophrenia*
> A disorder in which there is an insidious but progressive development of oddities of conduct, inability to meet the demands of society, and decline in total performance. The characteristic negative features of residual schizophrenia (e.g. blunting of affect and loss of volition) develop without being preceded by any overt psychotic symptoms.


----------



## SpackleFrog (Mar 30, 2021)

bimble said:


> Do you think in Bell’s case it was an unusual lapse of normal procedure and so by mistake a not really trans person slipped through the net ?



What do you mean by 'not really trans person'? How are we judging that exactly? 

As far as I'm aware anyone undergoing medical treatment like that has to be fully informed of the consequences and give informed consent as understood in law. So yeah, I'm guessing that if she was not fully informed and did not give informed consent then procedures were not followed.


----------



## bimble (Mar 30, 2021)

SpackleFrog said:


> What do you mean by 'not really trans person'? How are we judging that exactly?
> 
> As far as I'm aware anyone undergoing medical treatment like that has to be fully informed of the consequences and give informed consent as understood in law. So yeah, I'm guessing that if she was not fully informed and did not give informed consent then procedures were not followed.


I’m just going by what she’s said, that she thought she was but isn’t.

I'm not aware of whether she was treated differently (worse, more quickly) than anyone else, haven't read all about it tbh, but I don't think her accusation was against any particular member of staff, who failed to follow procedure, it was more general, it was about the procedure itself not a deviation from it. as far as i know.


----------



## Shechemite (Mar 30, 2021)

SpackleFrog said:


> Yes of course and there are. Whats your point?





SpackleFrog said:


> MadeInBedlam  did you even read my post?



apart from the obvious wankerness of your ‘I’m sorry she feels like other people should have stopped her’

1) informed consent isnt exactly routine in medicine (especially MH related)

2) the failure of others to prevent her (ie by relying on parental consent for a child wishing to have GD treatment) was precisely what Keira bells case rested on wasn’t it?


----------



## SpackleFrog (Mar 30, 2021)

bimble said:


> I’m just going by what she’s said, that she thought she was but isn’t.
> 
> I'm not aware of whether she was treated differently (worse, more quickly) than anyone else, haven't read all about it tbh, but I don't think her accusation was against any particular member of staff, who failed to follow procedure, it was more general, it was about the procedure itself not a deviation from it. as far as i know.



I'm not going to speculate on an individual case I don't know all the detail on and I don't think you should either. But if you are worried that teenagers can just walk into a clinic and just get prescribed puberty blockers without some very serious discussions happening, then you can stop worrying because that isn't a standard occurrence-whatever may have happened in this particular incident.


----------



## SpackleFrog (Mar 30, 2021)

MadeInBedlam said:


> apart from the obvious wankerness of your ‘I’m sorry she feels like other people should have stopped her’
> 
> 1) informed consent isnt exactly routine in medicine (especially MH related)
> 
> 2) the failure of others to prevent her (ie by relying on parental consent for a child wishing to have GD treatment) was precisely what Keira bells case rested on wasn’t it?



I think I would avoid the phrase "obvious wanker" if I were you. 

What point are you trying to make? I'm clearly not arguing against informed consent am I? I'm not saying its fine to dole out medical treatment without fully explaining the possible consequences.

Just to make it clear: I'm saying that whatever her experience of the health care system was, it does not make it ok for her to argue that trans kids should be denied all medical treatment or that women need men with guns to accompany them into toilets to protect them from trans women.


----------



## Border Reiver (Mar 30, 2021)

Edie said:


> That’s certainly contentious and not the widely held viewed. Sure, cognitive components of schizophrenia are there. But negative symptoms (anhedonia, flat affect, apathy, poverty of speech- my bro has this a lot) are probably the most life effecting. And of course so called positive symptoms (hallucinations, delusions) the most obvious and often affect-driven (paranoid, or manic, or dysthymic). Thought disorder can be seen as a cognitive symptom, but certainly isn’t always present with psychosis.


Dysphoria means disturbance of affect (mood). Cognitive impairments may cause dysphoria but are separate. Positive symptoms are largely cognitive. Negative symptoms are largely affective.


----------



## bimble (Mar 30, 2021)

SpackleFrog said:


> I'm not going to speculate on an individual case I don't know all the detail on and I don't think you should either. But if you are worried that teenagers can just walk into a clinic and just get prescribed puberty blockers without some very serious discussions happening, then you can stop worrying because that isn't a standard occurrence-whatever may have happened in this particular incident.


I .. ok. I'm not currently worried. But my niece was offered them (blockers) but it turns out she wasn't trans (her words) and is glad she decided to not take em straight away when offered. This is not in UK tho.


----------



## Shechemite (Mar 30, 2021)

SpackleFrog said:


> I think I would avoid the phrase "obvious wanker" if I were you.



Saying things like this do make you sound like a wanker though


----------



## Border Reiver (Mar 30, 2021)

SpackleFrog said:


> I'm not going to speculate on an individual case I don't know all the detail on and I don't think you should either. But if you are worried that teenagers can just walk into a clinic and just get prescribed puberty blockers without some very serious discussions happening, then you can stop worrying because that isn't a standard occurrence-whatever may have happened in this particular incident.


Average wait time for a first appointment with secondary care is eighteen months to two years.


----------



## SpackleFrog (Mar 30, 2021)

MadeInBedlam said:


> Saying things like this do make you sound like a wanker though



Each to their own. I can't say I'm that impressed with you either.


----------



## Border Reiver (Mar 30, 2021)

MadeInBedlam said:


> apart from the obvious wankerness of your ‘I’m sorry she feels like other people should have stopped her’
> 
> 1) informed consent isnt exactly routine in medicine (especially MH related)
> 
> 2) the failure of others to prevent her (ie by relying on parental consent for a child wishing to have GD treatment) was precisely what Keira bells case rested on wasn’t it?



1/ informed consent is always adhered to be even if the client disagrees or does not understand, even in mental health.

2/ The case only directly addressed child consent (Gillick Competence) I suspect it will be overturned on appeal. The side reference to parental consent has already been overturned by the appeal court.


----------



## SpackleFrog (Mar 30, 2021)

bimble said:


> I .. ok. I'm not currently worried. But my niece was offered them (blockers) but it turns out she wasn't trans (her words) and is glad she decided to not take em straight away when offered. This is not in UK tho.



Sounds like there's nothing to worry about then.


----------



## Border Reiver (Mar 30, 2021)

Border Reiver said:


> Dysphoria means disturbance of affect (mood). Cognitive impairments may cause dysphoria but are separate. Positive symptoms are largely cognitive. Negative symptoms are largely affective.








						Dysphoria - Wikipedia
					






					en.wikipedia.org


----------



## bimble (Mar 30, 2021)

SpackleFrog said:


> Sounds like there's nothing to worry about then.


Maybe not all 14 year olds are as brilliant and self aware as my niece though, to turn down the thing she went there to get, and waited months to be offered. But yeah, I'm not worrying, I'm making pasta.


----------



## Border Reiver (Mar 30, 2021)

MadeInBedlam said:


> Do you think there should be single sex wards in hospitals?


It depends on what is meant by single sex wards and what the client group is.


----------



## Border Reiver (Mar 30, 2021)

bimble said:


> Maybe not all 14 year olds are as brilliant and self aware as my niece though, to turn down the thing she went there to get, and waited months to be offered. But yeah, I'm not worrying, I'm making pasta.


I am making curry. But I do worry about the rights of Gillick Competent children to retain their right to decide their own medical treatment.


----------



## Shechemite (Mar 30, 2021)

Border Reiver said:


> 1/ informed consent is always adhered to be even if the client disagrees or does not understand, even in mental health.




lol


----------



## Shechemite (Mar 30, 2021)

Border Reiver said:


> It depends on what is meant by single sex wards and what the client group is.



Separate wards for men and women, on the basis of sex. (I’m not sure what else that could mean)


----------



## SpackleFrog (Mar 30, 2021)

bimble said:


> Maybe not all 14 year olds are as brilliant and self aware as my niece though, to turn down the thing she went there to get, and waited months to be offered. But yeah, I'm not worrying, I'm making pasta.



She wasn't just offered them then? She had to wait months?


----------



## Athos (Mar 30, 2021)

Border Reiver said:


> Not if determining the real views of the person on the subject.



But it doesn't even do that; on one interpretation the original 'killer question' just asks what the law is, rather than what it should be.


----------



## bimble (Mar 30, 2021)

Border Reiver said:


> I am making curry. But I do worry about the rights of Gillick Competent children to retain their right to decide their own medical treatment.


multi tasking! I admire you.


----------



## bimble (Mar 30, 2021)

SpackleFrog said:


> She wasn't just offered them then? She had to wait months?


Wait months for first appointment, then route to being offered the meds was quick, in her case.


----------



## SpackleFrog (Mar 30, 2021)

bimble said:


> Wait months for first appointment, then route to being offered the meds was quick, in her case.



I see. Where was it, out of interest?


----------



## bimble (Mar 30, 2021)

SpackleFrog said:


> I see. Where was it, out of interest?


america.


----------



## Raheem (Mar 30, 2021)

I'm pretty sure lots of people will be prescribed or ask to be prescribed puberty blockers, and then later identify as cis, or otherwise not wish to transition. It's a function of their usefulness for people who have not yet reached a decision or are not yet in a position to give consent. Obviously they shouldn't be prescribed lightly , though.


----------



## bimble (Mar 30, 2021)

Raheem said:


> I'm pretty sure lots of people will be prescribed or ask to be prescribed puberty blockers, and then later identify as cis, or otherwise not wish to transition. It's a function of their usefulness for people who have not yet reached a decision or are not yet in a position to give consent. Obviously they shouldn't be prescribed lightly , though.


The long term effects of them, even if taken briefly, are one of the things people spend their lives arguing about, in the absence of solid medical knowledge, in this time.


----------



## Louis MacNeice (Mar 30, 2021)

Border Reiver said:


> Imagine saying that you do not subscribe to the notion of certain ethnicity's rights being protected!



How do you imagine that playing out? Or if you prefer what is the result of indulging in your own thought experiment?

Cheers - Louis MacNeice


----------



## 8ball (Mar 30, 2021)

This “really trans” vs “not really trans” bothers me a bit.  Afaik there is a spectrum of results when it comes to hormone treatments and all the other interventions when it comes to dysphoria.  It seems like an inherent risk that some may regret their choices.


----------



## Border Reiver (Mar 30, 2021)

Louis MacNeice said:


> How do you imagine that playing out? Or if you prefer what is the result of indulging in your own thought experiment?
> 
> Cheers - Louis MacNeice


I do not play games. Do feel free to enter a real debate.


----------



## Border Reiver (Mar 30, 2021)

bimble said:


> The long term effects of them, even if taken briefly, are one of the things people spend their lives arguing about, in the absence of solid medical knowledge, in this time.



The class of  drugs used have been prescribed for nearly seventy years on children with precocious puberty. And for several decades for transgender persons.


----------



## Border Reiver (Mar 30, 2021)

Raheem said:


> I'm pretty sure lots of people will be prescribed or ask to be prescribed puberty blockers, and then later identify as cis, or otherwise not wish to transition. It's a function of their usefulness for people who have not yet reached a decision or are not yet in a position to give consent. Obviously they shouldn't be prescribed lightly , though.



See my reply to bimble above.


----------



## bimble (Mar 30, 2021)

Border Reiver said:


> The class of  drugs used have been prescribed for nearly seventy years on children with precocious puberty. And for several decades for transgender persons.


Yes. This is the NHS’s website on it currently. So they’re not sure of a bunch of stuff.


----------



## 8ball (Mar 30, 2021)

Border Reiver said:


> See my reply to bimble above.



I don’t see what your reply adds in terms of what Raheem said.


----------



## Border Reiver (Mar 30, 2021)

MadeInBedlam said:


> Separate wards for men and women, on the basis of sex. (I’m not sure what else that could mean)



Modern general wards are all integrated as each pair of single rooms share a wc and shower.

Psychiatry differs over type of unit. For instance provision of separate specialist units is uneconomic. Adult acute assessment should be single sex.


----------



## Border Reiver (Mar 30, 2021)

bimble said:


> Yes. This is the NHS’s website on it currently. So they’re not sure of a bunch of stuff.
> View attachment 260976


Much is known about short term and medium term use for precocious puberty.


----------



## 8ball (Mar 30, 2021)

bimble said:


> Yes. This is the NHS’s website on it currently. So they’re not sure of a bunch of stuff.
> View attachment 260976



They are considered ‘generally safe’.  It has to be balanced against the risks of going through a particularly distressing puberty, making certain aesthetic adjustments permanently impossible etc.

They have been used on young people in the past, just not that much on young gender-nonconforming people.


----------



## bimble (Mar 30, 2021)

8ball said:


> They are considered ‘generally safe’.  It has to be balanced against the risks of going through a particularly distressing puberty, making certain aesthetic adjustments permanently impossible etc.
> 
> They have been used on young people in the past, just not that much on young gender-nonconforming people.


Yep.


----------



## Shechemite (Mar 30, 2021)

Border Reiver said:


> Modern general wards are all integrated as each pair of single rooms share a wc and shower.
> 
> Psychiatry differs over type of unit. For instance provision of separate specialist units is uneconomic. Adult acute assessment should be single sex.



So should we have single sex (ie not mixed sex) wards? (Ie the question you’re trolling)

To be less sensitive - does a woman have a right to be on a ward that doesn’t include male patients?

it’s an observation that what should be and what is in mental health care aren’t the same. Might be worth addressing that as means of reducing the distress of people with dysphoria before demanding that people make statements that they know not to be true (Funnily enough it’s not great for anyones mental health)

also worth observing the economic motivation for ‘breaking down’ sex based protections in the NHS


----------



## Border Reiver (Mar 30, 2021)

bimble said:


> Yes. This is the NHS’s website on it currently. So they’re not sure of a bunch of stuff.
> View attachment 260976



That is now out of date after a court hearing at the Appeal Court last week which confirmed that the parent with parental responsibility can authorize puberty blockers with informed consent. 

I fully expect the previous finding to be completely overturned at the Court of Appeal or UKSC.

Puberty blockers are still prescribed with Gillick Competent consent from children in Scotland.


----------



## Border Reiver (Mar 30, 2021)

MadeInBedlam said:


> So should we have single sex (ie not mixed sex) wards? (Ie the question you’re trolling)
> 
> To be less sensitive - does a woman have a right to be on a ward that doesn’t include male patients?
> 
> ...



I stop responding to people who use abuse in debate. 

Briefly, it depends on the structure of wards and the type of patient and service. 

There is no guarantee of single sex wards, just that toilet and washing rooms must be separate. Our new local hospital is all single room so the problem does not arise.


----------



## Shechemite (Mar 30, 2021)

right


----------



## Athos (Mar 30, 2021)

Border Reiver said:


> That is now out of date after a court hearing at the Appeal Court last week which confirmed that the parent with parental responsibility can authorize puberty blockers with informed consent.
> 
> I fully expect the previous finding to be completely overturned at the Court of Appeal or UKSC.
> 
> Puberty blockers are still prescribed with Gillick Competent consent from children in Scotland.



Do you have a link to the judgement, please?

ETA Scrap that - found it:  _AB v CD & Ors_ [2021] EWHC 741 (Fam)

ETA Not sure it makes the passage bimble quoted 'out of date' (as you claimed) though.


----------



## smokedout (Mar 30, 2021)

bimble said:


> I’m just going by what she’s said, that she thought she was but isn’t.
> 
> I'm not aware of whether she was treated differently (worse, more quickly) than anyone else, haven't read all about it tbh, but I don't think her accusation was against any particular member of staff, who failed to follow procedure, it was more general, it was about the procedure itself not a deviation from it. as far as i know.



Keira Bell has been very clear that nothing would have stopped her, which is we she wants to see trans healthcare banned.  Whilst her account of her treatment was disputed by the Tavistock the court said it was not relevant to the case, which was a judicial review into the ability to give consent for the procedure overall, so it never went into it details and we don't really know what procedures were followed.  Most importantly however most of the treatment she received was when she was an adult.

Keira's legal team attempted to intervene in the recent case in an effort to prevent parent's being able to give consent but the Judge said no because it involved an actual child and would have been difficult to maintain confidentiality.  In reality this is what was happening anyway, it came out in the Bell case that the Tavistock hadn't ever treated someone where the parent's had disagreed with treatment, so whilst we don't yet know how GIDS will respond it's likely to be business as usual.


----------



## SpackleFrog (Mar 30, 2021)

smokedout said:


> Keira Bell has been very clear that nothing would have stopped her, which is we she wants to see trans healthcare banned.  Whilst her account of her treatment was disputed by the Tavistock the court said it was not relevant to the case, which was a judicial review into the ability to give consent for the procedure overall, so it never went into it details and we don't really know what procedures were followed.  Most importantly however most of the treatment she received was when she was an adult.
> 
> Keira's legal team attempted to intervene in the recent case in an effort to prevent parent's being able to give consent but the Judge said no because it involved an actual child and would have been difficult to maintain confidentiality.  In reality this is what was happening anyway, it came out in the Bell case that the Tavistock hadn't ever treated someone where the parent's had disagreed with treatment, so whilst we don't yet know how GIDS will respond it's likely to be business as usual.



Thanks for all the informative posts and limitless patience by the way, don't know how you do it.


----------



## Border Reiver (Mar 30, 2021)

Raheem said:


> I'm pretty sure lots of people will be prescribed or ask to be prescribed puberty blockers, and then later identify as cis, or otherwise not wish to transition. It's a function of their usefulness for people who have not yet reached a decision or are not yet in a position to give consent. Obviously they shouldn't be prescribed lightly , though.


No one is suggesting that they be prescribed lightly. The law controls consent and currently parents can consent for their children. The restriction on Gillick Competence is being appealed and I expect it to be overturned.


----------



## Raheem (Mar 30, 2021)

Border Reiver said:


> No one is suggesting that they be prescribed lightly.


Probably mainly because it's obvious they shouldn't be.


----------



## Border Reiver (Mar 30, 2021)

Athos said:


> Do you have a link to the judgement, please?
> 
> ETA Scrap that - found it:  _AB v CD & Ors_ [2021] EWHC 741 (Fam)
> 
> ETA Not sure it makes the passage bimble quoted 'out of date' (as you claimed) though.



The part he copied is up to date. The rest of the site has not updated the recent case on  parental consent which drives a coach and horses through the decision.


----------



## Border Reiver (Mar 30, 2021)

smokedout said:


> Keira Bell has been very clear that nothing would have stopped her, which is we she wants to see trans healthcare banned.  Whilst her account of her treatment was disputed by the Tavistock the court said it was not relevant to the case, which was a judicial review into the ability to give consent for the procedure overall, so it never went into it details and we don't really know what procedures were followed.  Most importantly however most of the treatment she received was when she was an adult.
> 
> Keira's legal team attempted to intervene in the recent case in an effort to prevent parent's being able to give consent but the Judge said no because it involved an actual child and would have been difficult to maintain confidentiality.  In reality this is what was happening anyway, it came out in the Bell case that the Tavistock hadn't ever treated someone where the parent's had disagreed with treatment, so whilst we don't yet know how GIDS will respond it's likely to be business as usual.



The law currently has little effect, which is good. I fully expect a return to Gillick Competence.


----------



## kabbes (Mar 30, 2021)

Border Reiver said:


> Dysphoria means disturbance of affect (mood). Cognitive impairments may cause dysphoria but are separate. Positive symptoms are largely cognitive. Negative symptoms are largely affective.


Mood is not a synonym of affect.  And the idea that affect is distinct from mood is highly contentious at best, and many world say that it is total bollocks.


----------



## Border Reiver (Mar 30, 2021)

kabbes said:


> Mod is not a synonym of affect.  And the idea that affect is distinct from mood is highly contentious at best, and many world say that it is total bollocks.


I did not say affect is not a synonym of mood. Mood and affect are connected temporally.


----------



## Border Reiver (Mar 30, 2021)

Border Reiver said:


> I did not say affect is not a synonym of mood. Mood and affect are connected temporally.


----------



## kabbes (Mar 30, 2021)

Border Reiver said:


> I did not say affect is not a synonym of mood. Mood and affect are connected temporally.


You said “affect (mood)”.  What did you mean by that?


----------



## Border Reiver (Mar 30, 2021)

Affect and mood are in an "emotional" basket. Much else is in a "cognitive" basket. 


*Affect* is the visible reaction a person displays toward events. ... *Affect* is described by such terms as constricted, normal range, appropriate to context, flat, and shallow. *Mood* refers to the feeling tone and is described by such terms as anxious, depressed, dysphoric, euphoric, angry, and irritable.


Access Training Materials › res
*The Mental Status Examination - Del Mar*


----------



## Border Reiver (Mar 30, 2021)

Border Reiver said:


> Affect and mood are in an "emotional" basket. Much else is in a "cognitive" basket.
> 
> 
> *Affect* is the visible reaction a person displays toward events. ... *Affect* is described by such terms as constricted, normal range, appropriate to context, flat, and shallow. *Mood* refers to the feeling tone and is described by such terms as anxious, depressed, dysphoric, euphoric, angry, and irritable.
> ...



Particularly dysphoria does not refer to cognition but emotion if they can be separated.


----------



## kabbes (Mar 30, 2021)

I don’t need to be given a link to the definition of mood or affect.

Your assertion that both these things are distinct from cognition is not something generally accepted within psychology, despite the fact that some branches claim it. Review, for example, Emotions and Social Relations


----------



## Border Reiver (Mar 30, 2021)

kabbes said:


> I don’t need to be given a link to the definition of mood or affect.
> 
> Your assertion that both these things are distinct from cognition is not something generally accepted within psychology, despite the fact that some branches claim it. Review, for example, Emotions and Social Relations








						Psychiatry Online
					






					ajp.psychiatryonline.org


----------



## kittyP (Mar 30, 2021)

MadeInBedlam said:


> So should we have single sex (ie not mixed sex) wards? (Ie the question you’re trolling)
> 
> To be less sensitive - does a woman have a right to be on a ward that doesn’t include male patients?
> 
> ...



In all honesty when it comes to Mental Health, if someone is struggling with their mental health as much as to be hospitalised, I think people should be in a private room with access to a common area. 
I could (have) coped on a ward when suffering with physical problems but if I was admitted due to my mental health I wouldn't want to be in a bed next to anyone else who was also having a hard time mentally.


----------



## kabbes (Mar 30, 2021)

Border Reiver said:


> Psychiatry Online
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Why would you assume that psychiatry online is the last word in this?  Why is the medical model your be all and end all of psychological understanding?


----------



## Border Reiver (Mar 30, 2021)

kabbes said:


> Why would you assume that psychiatry online is the last word in this?  Why is the medical model your be all and end all of psychological understanding?


I am not here to argue the finer points of psychiatry. I am trying to assist people to understand why dysphoria is not a matter of belief but one of emotion.

I'm done.


----------



## kabbes (Mar 30, 2021)

Border Reiver said:


> I am not here to argue the finer points of psychiatry. I am trying to assist people to understand why dysphoria is not a matter of belief but one of emotion.
> 
> I'm done.


You come across to me as somebody that is adopting the trappings of an academic discipline that you don’t actually have real depth of knowledge in.  Now, maybe I’m right and maybe I’m wrong in that.  But you are making statements that to me seem highly contestable  without acknowledging that at all.


----------



## Shechemite (Mar 30, 2021)

who has argued that dysphoria is a matter of belief?


----------



## kabbes (Mar 30, 2021)

MadeInBedlam said:


> who has argued that dysphoria is a matter of belief?


And why, in any case, is emotion being presented as distinct from belief?  Emotion is mediated through the making of meaning, which includes beliefs.


----------



## Border Reiver (Mar 30, 2021)

MadeInBedlam said:


> who has argued that dysphoria is a matter of belief?


Dysphoria is often misused to mean the beliefthat you are wrongly gendered rather than the emotional reaction to it.


----------



## Shechemite (Mar 30, 2021)

to use the case of dysphoria experienced by autistic people, can this be lessened trough different beliefs?


----------



## Shechemite (Mar 30, 2021)

Border Reiver said:


> Dysphoria is often misused to mean the beliefthat you are wrongly gendered rather than the emotional reaction to it.



whos done that?


----------



## Border Reiver (Mar 30, 2021)

kabbes said:


> And why, in any case, is emotion being presented as distinct from belief?  Emotion is mediated through the making of meaning, which includes beliefs.



Do debate it with yourself. This is about transgender issues, not philosophical differences in psychiatry. I'm done.


----------



## kabbes (Mar 30, 2021)

Border Reiver said:


> Do debate it with yourself. This is about transgender issues, not philosophical differences in psychiatry. I'm done.


How convenient for you.  If you don’t want to debate it, don’t make the assertions as if they are uncontested truth.

Also, I’m not talking about psychiatry.  You do understand the difference between psychiatry and psychology, right?


----------



## Raheem (Mar 30, 2021)

MadeInBedlam said:


> whos done that?


I think it's fair to say a lot of people assume the term "gender dysphoria" to be synonymous with being trans.

OTOH, it's also probably a mostly unimportant misconception.


----------



## Border Reiver (Mar 30, 2021)

kabbes said:


> You come across to me as somebody that is adopting the trappings of an academic discipline that you don’t actually have real depth of knowledge in.  Now, maybe I’m right and maybe I’m wrong in that.  But you are making statements that to me seem highly contestable  without acknowledging that at all.


You are entitled to your opinion. You appear to want to divert the debate into territory that you want to cover rather than the issue at question. I'm done.


----------



## Shechemite (Mar 30, 2021)

Raheem said:


> I think it's fair to say a lot of people assume the term "gender dysphoria" to be synonymous with being trans.
> 
> OTOH, it's also probably a mostly unimportant misconception.



New fella was talking about dysphoria being misunderstood, not gender dysphoria  

Is new fella an anti-GC troll? Normally the gender identity crowd are a bit more er intense.


----------



## Border Reiver (Mar 30, 2021)

MadeInBedlam said:


> New fella was talking about dysphoria being misunderstood, not gender dysphoria
> 
> Is new fella an anti-GC troll? Normally the gender identity crowd are a bit more er intense.


I am a supporter of increased freedom for registration of gender change. 

Gender dysphoria is negative emotional reaction to the belief/knowledge that one is transgender, not to the belief or status itself.


----------



## Border Reiver (Mar 30, 2021)

Border Reiver said:


> I am a supporter of increased freedom for registration of gender change.
> 
> Gender dysphoria is negative emotional reaction to the belief/knowledge that one is transgender, not to the belief or status itself.


*Gender dysphoria*: A concept designated in the *DSM*-*5* as clinically significant distress or impairment related to a strong desire to be of another *gender*, which may include desire to change primary and/or secondary sex characteristics. Not all *transgender* or *gender* diverse people experience *dysphoria*.

Home │ psychiatry.org › what-is...
*What Is Gender Dysphoria? - American Psychiatric Association*


----------



## kabbes (Mar 30, 2021)

What is an emotion, in your view?


----------



## kabbes (Mar 30, 2021)

Border Reiver said:


> *Gender dysphoria*: A concept designated in the *DSM*-*5* as clinically significant distress or impairment related to a strong desire to be of another *gender*, which may include desire to change primary and/or secondary sex characteristics. Not all *transgender* or *gender* diverse people experience *dysphoria*.
> View attachment 261008
> Home │ psychiatry.org › what-is...
> *What Is Gender Dysphoria? - American Psychiatric Association*


And here we go with psychiatry and the DSM again, as if that settles anything.


----------



## Border Reiver (Mar 30, 2021)

I tend to ignore posters who use abuse in debate (troll is abuse)


----------



## Border Reiver (Mar 30, 2021)

kabbes said:


> And here we go with psychiatry and the DSM again, as if that settles anything.


I'm done with your distraction technique.


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Mar 30, 2021)




----------



## two sheds (Mar 30, 2021)

Isn't it abuse to call someone who's trying to debate with you a troll?


----------



## kabbes (Mar 30, 2021)

Border Reiver said:


> I'm done with your distraction technique.


You are literally quoting the DSM as if that settles things and then refusing even to acknowledge the controversy that exists around it.  If you don’t want to talk about psychology, stop trying to use it as the basis of your arguments.


----------



## Border Reiver (Mar 30, 2021)

kabbes said:


> And here we go with psychiatry and the DSM again, as if that settles anything.


Final word. Gender dysphoria is defined in DSM 5. Where else is the term defined?


----------



## kabbes (Mar 30, 2021)

Border Reiver said:


> Final word. Gender dysphoria is defined in DSM 5. Where else is the term defined?


Seriously?


----------



## Border Reiver (Mar 30, 2021)

kabbes said:


> Seriously?


Where else?


----------



## Louis MacNeice (Mar 30, 2021)

Border Reiver said:


> I do not play games. Do feel free to enter a real debate.



You do play games (it may well be all you are doing) and you don't get to say what constitutes 'real debate' or not.

So enough prevarication and answer your own implicit question: 'imagine saying that you do not subscribe to the notion of certain ethnicity's rights being protected'?

Cheers - Louis MacNeice


----------



## kabbes (Mar 30, 2021)

Border Reiver said:


> Where else?


You think that psychiatrists are the only ones to have defined dysphoria?

I’ll ask you again — do you know the difference between psychiatry and psychology?


----------



## Border Reiver (Mar 30, 2021)

kabbes said:


> You think that psychiatrists are the only ones to have defined dysphoria?
> 
> I’ll ask you again — do you know the difference between psychiatry and psychology?



Gender Dysphoria was a new coinage by the APA. The phrase had no meaning of usage before DSM5 was published. Previously DSM IV used the term GID, Gender Identity Disorder.

People have started to use the term to mean other things than the coiner intended. I was merely pointing that out.


----------



## Border Reiver (Mar 30, 2021)

Louis MacNeice said:


> You do play games (it may well be all you are doing) and you don't get to say what constitutes 'real debate' or not.
> 
> So enough prevarication and answer your own implicit question: 'imagine saying that you do not subscribe to the notion of certain ethnicity's rights being protected'?
> 
> Cheers - Louis MacNeice


What has your post have to do with the OP?


----------



## kabbes (Mar 30, 2021)

Border Reiver said:


> Gender Dysphoria was a new coinage by the APA. The phrase had no meaning of usage before DSM5 was published. Previously DSM IV used the term GID, Gender Identity Disorder.
> 
> People have started to use the term to mean other things than the coiner intended. I was merely pointing that out.


The fact that the DSM introduced the phrase “gender dysphoria” merely represents the assumptions made within a medical model of pathologised mental health.  It doesn’t mean that the psychiatrists that introduced it have a hotline to the truth.


----------



## Border Reiver (Mar 30, 2021)

kabbes said:


> The fact that the DSM introduced the phrase “gender dysphoria” merely represents the assumptions made within a medical model of pathologised mental health.  It doesn’t mean that the psychiatrists that introduced it have a hotline to the truth.



FFS anyone educated, seeing the phrase "Gender Dysphoria", knows that it was a purposeful new coinage to avoid political problems with GID. It has no other definition. Before 2010 it was an unknown term and was only coined in the debate about updating DSM IV(R).


----------



## 8ball (Mar 30, 2021)

kabbes said:


> The fact that the DSM introduced the phrase “gender dysphoria” merely represents the assumptions made within a medical model of pathologised mental health...



And the currents of discussion within the US medical insurance industry...


----------



## Border Reiver (Mar 30, 2021)

kabbes said:


> The fact that the DSM introduced the phrase “gender dysphoria” merely represents the assumptions made within a medical model of pathologised mental health.  It doesn’t mean that the psychiatrists that introduced it have a hotline to the truth.



Oh my god! Someone who believes in a single truth.


----------



## kabbes (Mar 30, 2021)

Border Reiver said:


> Oh my god! Someone who believes in a single truth.


You’re the one quoting the DSM as if it answers the question.

I do not trust the DSM to provide me with the key insight into psychological issues.


----------



## kabbes (Mar 30, 2021)

Border Reiver said:


> FFS anyone educated, seeing the phrase "Gender Dysphoria", knows that it was a purposeful new coinage to avoid political problems with GID. It has no other definition. Before 2010 it was an unknown term and was only coined in the debate about updating DSM IV(R).


Do you think that the word “dysphoria” originated with the conception of “gender dysphoria”?


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Mar 30, 2021)

Border Reiver said:


> Oh my god! Someone who believes in a single truth.


You're the only poster I see here making appeals to authority in place of argument. 

And dodging awkward questions. Have you come up with a way of explaining sexual reproduction without reference to the category of sex yet?


----------



## Border Reiver (Mar 30, 2021)

8ball said:


> And the currents of discussion within the US medical insurance industry...


I neither support not oppose the term. I am merely commenting on its usage (incorrectly in my view) to mean being transgender. It means negative emotional reaction to being transgender.

Consider the difference between "being bereaved" and "grief reaction". Mental state and the emotional reaction to it. Same as "being transgender" and "gender dysphoria".


----------



## kabbes (Mar 30, 2021)

I think Border Reiver is unused to talking to people that have knowledge about the things they like to refer to.


----------



## Border Reiver (Mar 30, 2021)

littlebabyjesus said:


> You're the only poster I see here making appeals to authority in place of argument.
> 
> And dodging awkward questions. Have you come up with a way of explaining sexual reproduction without reference to the category of sex yet?



Sexual reproduction is not synonymous with biological sex.


----------



## kabbes (Mar 30, 2021)

Border Reiver said:


> I neither support not oppose the term. I am merely commenting on its usage (incorrectly in my view) to mean being transgender. It means negative emotional reaction to being transgender.
> 
> Consider the difference between "being bereaved" and "grief reaction". Mental state and the emotional reaction to it. Same as "being transgender" and "gender dysphoria".


I have to ask you again what you think an emotion is.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Mar 30, 2021)

Border Reiver said:


> It means negative emotional reaction to being transgender.


I don't accept that as a definition. It simply means experiencing distress over your gender identity. You don't have to be transgender to experience gender dysphoria.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Mar 30, 2021)

Border Reiver said:


> Sexual reproduction is not synonymous with biological sex.


Is that a 'no'?


----------



## Border Reiver (Mar 30, 2021)

kabbes said:


> I have to ask you again what you think an emotion is.


Right. Looking for the ignore function. Do you understand the concept of sealioning?


----------



## kabbes (Mar 30, 2021)

Border Reiver said:


> Right. Looking for the ignore function. Do you understand the concept of sealioning?


Brilliant.  Heaven forbid you have to answer to any of the assertions you make


----------



## Shechemite (Mar 30, 2021)

Fucking hell


----------



## Border Reiver (Mar 30, 2021)

littlebabyjesus said:


> You're the only poster I see here making appeals to authority in place of argument.
> 
> And dodging awkward questions. Have you come up with a way of explaining sexual reproduction without reference to the category of sex yet?



Appeal to false authority is the correct  name fallacy. The coiner of a term is the true authority.


----------



## comrade spurski (Mar 30, 2021)

co-op said:


> The things is, those aren't the sentences written - and as far as I can work out there is no equivalent to the whole horrendous trans "debate". The use of the word "transphobia" to rule out any criticism of a political position such as gender critical feminism as motivated only by "hate" has no analogue anywhere else and this is why I am so baffled and confused by this issue.
> 
> To return to the original post can you at least highlight the "transphobic" sentences?



This is a genuine question.

Does someone have to have to use a sexist term in order to be sexist?
(You can apply this to racism of homopobia)

Surely there are people who act in a discriminatory way without using obviously abusive terms.

As a mixed raced black person I have my ideas taken by white people and presented as their own. That attitude can be(and has been) part of racist behaviour.

I have had people mock the smell or look of some of the food I grew up with. That can also be part of racist behaviour.

There are things in that statement that make me mistrust the motives of the person that wrote it.

For example ...

"No, I wouldn't like to talk about it. I have not said one thing that is transphobic (which has become a meaningless word as it is used so often)."

That mirrors stuff right wingers say about racism.

Also ....
"Is it OK for a person to claim to be disabled because they "feel disabled" and claim all the protections and systems put in place to allow disabled people to be equal within society?"

Many disabled people are treated poorly because they have "invisible" disabilities and are made to feel like they falsely claiming these protections.

And the the about Bob Marley comes across appallingly imho.

I have no idea what this person's politics are but that statement was (at best) piss poor.


----------



## kabbes (Mar 30, 2021)

For the record: emotions are the meaning-making of experienced embodied feelings.  This meaning-making is inherently social and mediated through culture.  To claim some essentialised emotion that exists outwith culture or context is ridiculously oversimplistic.


----------



## Border Reiver (Mar 30, 2021)

Appeal to False Authority - Logically Fallacious


Appeal to False Authority ... Description: Using an alleged authority as evidence in your argument when the authority is not really an authority on the facts relevant to the argument. As the audience, allowing an irrelevant  ...

https://www.logicallyfallacious.com › ...


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Mar 30, 2021)

Border Reiver said:


> Appeal to false authority is the correct  name fallacy. The coiner of a term is the true authority.


Ok. You're really full of shit. Bye.


----------



## Shechemite (Mar 30, 2021)

[


kabbes said:


> For the record: emotions are the meaning-making of experienced embodied feelings.  This meaning-making is inherently social and mediated through culture.  To claim some essentialised emotion that exists outwith culture or context is ridiculously oversimplistic.



Can one have an experienced-embodied feeling of severe discomfort prior to any meaning making?


----------



## kabbes (Mar 30, 2021)

MadeInBedlam said:


> [
> 
> 
> Can one have an experienced-embodied feeling of severe discomfort prior to any meaning making?


Yes, the feeling is just a feeling.  But in order for it to be an emotion, you have to attach a meaning to that feeling.

If you feel extreme butterflies in the stomach, it is the context and the meaning you attach to it that makes it into love or fear or anticipation or any one of a thousand other emotions.


----------



## A380 (Mar 30, 2021)

Border Reiver said:


> ...in psychiatry. I'm done.





Border Reiver said:


> .... issue at question. I'm done.





Border Reiver said:


> I'm done ....


----------



## pseudonarcissus (Mar 30, 2021)

have we strayed away from the point?


----------



## kabbes (Mar 30, 2021)

pseudonarcissus said:


> have we strayed away from the point?


Depends what the point being made was.  Border Reiver was resting an awful lot of statements on highly contestable claims, but that’s just them. 

I have little to say about the issues surrounding actually being transgender. To me, it doesn’t much matter what the origins are of feeling that your gender is misaligned, the reality is something you have to live with the best you can. That deserves empathy and a lack of judgement.  It’s not something I feel I have a right to opine on one way or the other.

There is a problem, however, when this triggers off essentialist, individualist and apolitical arguments that ignore the reality of contemporary power relations.  It’s that part I will challenge as necessaey


----------



## 8ball (Mar 30, 2021)

kabbes said:


> For the record: emotions are the meaning-making of experienced embodied feelings.  This meaning-making is inherently social and mediated through culture.  To claim some essentialised emotion that exists outwith culture or context is ridiculously oversimplistic.



I know you’re going with a well-established current of thinking, but it always strikes me as highly dubious - as if a solitary organism could not experience what we clearly recognise as fear.


----------



## kabbes (Mar 30, 2021)

8ball said:


> I know you’re going with a well-established current of thinking, but it always strikes me as highly dubious - as if a solitary organism could not experience what we clearly recognise as fear.


They can’t feel fear without interpreting the situation as a threat.


----------



## 8ball (Mar 30, 2021)

kabbes said:


> They can’t feel fear without interpreting the situation as a threat.



They don’t need a culture and language for that.


----------



## kabbes (Mar 30, 2021)

8ball said:


> They don’t need a culture and language for that.


They do need to interpret the meaning of it though.

And for humans, meaning-making is inherently cultural and linguistic.


----------



## Shechemite (Mar 30, 2021)

Well we do have logos


----------



## 8ball (Mar 30, 2021)

kabbes said:


> They do need to interpret the meaning of it though.
> 
> And for humans, meaning-making is inherently cultural and linguistic.



Not with you on either count. I don’t think “meaning making” in anything like a human context applies to the threat detection in a lot of animals, and where it applies to humans I don’t think it is necessarily cultural or linguistic.

A pre-verbal baby can recognise a threat.


----------



## Raheem (Mar 30, 2021)

8ball said:


> Not with you on either count. I don’t think “meaning making” anything like a human context applies to the threat detection in a lot of animals, and where it applies to humans I don’t think it is necessarily cultural or linguistic.


We can't know anything about how an animal experiences threat-detection, so we can't properly attach a label to the experience, or really even understand it as being an experience at all.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Mar 30, 2021)

Raheem said:


> We can't know anything about how an animal experiences threat-detection, so we can't properly attach a label to the experience, or really even understand it as being an experience at all.


We can know plenty. Unless you're going down the route that we can't know any experience other than our own, in which case that applies to all other humans as well, there's plenty we can know about the minds of other animals if we allow a slightly less rigorous, but far from unreasonable, standard of 'know'.


----------



## 8ball (Mar 30, 2021)

Raheem said:


> We can't know anything about how an animal experiences threat-detection, so we can't properly attach a label to the experience, or really even understand it as being an experience at all.



We can’t know much about how a newborn experiences it either.  I’m not convinced this analysis really relates well to humans in general, though.  It seems like a desperate attempt to erase an element of our animal nature.  The left does that a lot, and it always strikes me as a fools’ errand


----------



## Shechemite (Mar 30, 2021)

gender dysphoria can’t be a pre meaning-making, purely embodied experience then?


----------



## pseudonarcissus (Mar 30, 2021)

kabbes said:


> Depends what the point being made was.  Border Reiver was resting an awful lot of statements on highly contestable claims, but that’s just them.


I think the point was about someone being banned from social media for allegedly being transphobic.

I think the offensive bit of the original article was:

_I believe in biological reality and do not subscribe to the notion of gender identity especially when it damages women and girls_

I think Border Riever's point was that he does _subscribe to the notion of_ _gender identity_. How well sourced the medicalisation opinion is,  and the definitions are, I am not qualified to say. The problem with discussion of trans issues on urban is that it quickly becomes very emotional and agressive. I don't think this is productive.

As far as I am aware, we have chased away any actual trans people that tried to engage with this issue.

I'm not sure what your point is. Is gender dysphoria a "real" medical complaint, imagined, like some sort of Munchausen syndrome, or what the victorians would have lumped under hysteria? Or just chaps wanting to wear dresses and spy on young girls in the changing rooms?

In any of the first three cases above people should be treated with respect and afforded their rights. Any medical interventions are probably best discussed between them and their medical professionals. I know lots of people here are very well informed, but fighting over blanket medical opinions by non-professionals, or professionals not acting in the field, is not going to get us anywhere. It tends to discourage anyone with first hand knowledge from participating in the debate.


----------



## 8ball (Mar 30, 2021)

MadeInBedlam said:


> gender dysphoria can’t be a pre meaning-making, purely embodied experience then?



I don’t think so.  I was just talking about the limits of that filter.  I think a kind of disgust reflex when it comes to one’s own body could be though (only tentatively tbf).


----------



## Santino (Mar 30, 2021)

kabbes said:


> I think Border Reiver is unused to talking to people that have knowledge about the things they like to refer to.


Actually I think they're very very used to it.


----------



## Border Reiver (Mar 30, 2021)

pseudonarcissus said:


> have we strayed away from the point?


Yes. I have been trying to close the diversion.


----------



## Santino (Mar 30, 2021)

Border Reiver said:


> Yes. I have been trying to close the diversion.


But you're done now.


----------



## Border Reiver (Mar 30, 2021)

Santino said:


> But you're done now.


I have put kabbes on ignore. He kept on sealioning.


----------



## 8ball (Mar 30, 2021)

pseudonarcissus said:


> I think the point was about someone being banned from social media for allegedly being transphobic.
> 
> I think the offensive bit of the original article was:
> 
> ...



While a lot of your post makes sense (to me), I think you’re mischaracterising where kabbes is coming from.


----------



## Santino (Mar 30, 2021)

Border Reiver said:


> I have put kabbes on ignore. He kept on sealioning.


What's sealioning?


----------



## Shechemite (Mar 30, 2021)

gender isn’t essential to a person. We agree on that. It’s a socially mediated experience.  So gender dysphoria cannot be a pre-meaning-making, embodied experience?


----------



## pseudonarcissus (Mar 30, 2021)

8ball said:


> I think you’re mischaracterising where kabbes is coming from.


Quite possibly, and I apologise if I have upset them. But we are fighting over what is, or is not, happening in someone else's head. If you were confronting gender identity issues and looked at the _tone_ of the last few pages, would you wish to engage?


----------



## Shechemite (Mar 30, 2021)

Santino said:


> What's sealioning?



Border weavers posts do make me think of this thread.



			https://www.urban75.net/forums/threads/views-on-the-politics-of-unrecovery-from-mental-health-groups-like-recovery-in-the-bin-and-mental-health-resistance-network.370168/


----------



## Shechemite (Mar 30, 2021)

pseudonarcissus said:


> Quite possibly, and I apologise if I have upset them. But we are fighting over what is, or is not, happening in someone else's head. If you were confronting gender identity issues and looked at the _tone_ of the last few pages, would you wish to engage?



I’ve talked openly about my own dysphoria on here. I’ve coped.


----------



## 8ball (Mar 30, 2021)

MadeInBedlam said:


> gender isn’t essential to a person.



Debates over what is essential to a person are likely to be an infinite rabbit hole imo.
That’s regardless of whether I agree with you on that point by the way.  

Trans people don’t exactly have an infinite number of postulated cultures to go and live in.


----------



## Shechemite (Mar 30, 2021)

8ball said:


> Debates over what is essential to a person are likely to be an infinite rabbit hole imo.
> That’s regardless of whether I agree with you on that point by the way.
> 
> Trans people don’t exactly have an infinite number of postulated cultures to go and live in.



Fair enough.


----------



## 8ball (Mar 30, 2021)

pseudonarcissus said:


> Quite possibly, and I apologise if I have upset them. But we are fighting over what is, or is not, happening in someone else's head. If you were confronting gender identity issues and looked at the _tone_ of the last few pages, would you wish to engage?



That’s a good point.  A lot of people are trying to figure this out in their own heads.  I don’t trust any of the pat answers (or even most of the more nuanced answers in this area).  It’s a bit different to other struggles because there seems like so much more potential to do harm, even with the best intentions.


----------



## kabbes (Mar 30, 2021)

pseudonarcissus said:


> Quite possibly, and I apologise if I have upset them. But we are fighting over what is, or is not, happening in someone else's head. If you were confronting gender identity issues and looked at the _tone_ of the last few pages, would you wish to engage?


I didn’t enter this conversation in any of the points about personal experience.  I entered it when an individual started to claim that personal experience rendered the power relations associated with reproductive classes to be irrelevant and asserted a bifurcation of emotion from cognition as part of this claim.


----------



## Balbi (Mar 30, 2021)

I left two years ago and this thread was happening somewhere else on the boards, now it's happening here.

Happy trans day of visibility everyone.

See you in another two years.


----------



## 8ball (Mar 30, 2021)

Balbi said:


> I left two years ago and this thread was happening somewhere else on the boards, now it's happening here.
> 
> Happy trans day of visibility everyone.
> 
> See you in another two years.



Hey Balbi.  
Hope it at least looks different when you’re next in.


----------



## Border Reiver (Mar 30, 2021)

Santino said:


> What's sealioning?


Persistently questioning statements and asking for evidence about minor of side issues. 

I was simply trying to point out that being transgender is not identical to gender dysphoria. He was challenging the concept of gender dysphoria, not its usage by asking more and more off topic questions.


----------



## Spanner (Mar 30, 2021)

Raheem said:


> We can't know anything about how an animal experiences threat-detection, so we can't properly attach a label to the experience, or really even understand it as being an experience at all.


Maybe you’re as bad at understanding long-studied animal behavioural responses as I am at analogies


----------



## Sue (Mar 31, 2021)

This...ahem...new poster doesn't half go on while trying to avoid actually debating stuff.  

(((Sealions)))


----------



## 8ball (Mar 31, 2021)

Spanner said:


> Maybe you’re as bad at understanding long-studied animal behavioural responses as I am at analogies



It’s fair to say we can’t experience anything like it from the inside.  We can just glean some insights from what it does.


----------



## editor (Mar 31, 2021)

Santino said:


> What's sealioning?


It's when people suddenly start spinning big balls on their noses and making a noise with their flippers in the hope of being thrown some juicy fish. 

I think.


----------



## Border Reiver (Mar 31, 2021)

Santino said:


> What's sealioning?








						Sealioning - Wikipedia
					






					en.wikipedia.org


----------



## Sue (Mar 31, 2021)

TBF, seems like urban is sealion heaven going by this...


Border Reiver said:


> Persistently questioning statements and asking for evidence about minor of side issues.


----------



## Spanner (Mar 31, 2021)

8ball said:


> It’s fair to say we can’t experience anything like it from the inside.  We can just glean some insights from what it does.


An old debate, still raging:



			literature.org


----------



## Raheem (Mar 31, 2021)

Spanner said:


> Maybe you’re as bad at understanding long-studied animal behavioural responses as I am at analogies


Unlikely.


----------



## Raheem (Mar 31, 2021)

8ball said:


> We can’t know much about how a newborn experiences it either.  I’m not convinced this analysis really relates well to humans in general, though.  It seems like a desperate attempt to erase an element of our animal nature.  The left does that a lot, and it always strikes me as a fools’ errand


We also can't know what a newborn experiences, true. Notwithstanding that some people claim memories of their very early life. I don't see how this has anything to do with erasing anything, though. Knowing what an animal or a newborn is experiencing was never there in the first place.


----------



## 8ball (Mar 31, 2021)

Raheem said:


> We also can't know what a newborn experiences, true. Notwithstanding that some people claim memories of their very early life. I don't see how this has anything to do with erasing anything, though. Knowing what an animal or a newborn is experiencing was never there in the first place.



What I mean is that attempts to take things like emotions and to try to embed their fundamentals in culture is an attempt to avoid some of the less palatable truths about what humans are - partly as a reaction to the traumas of the last century where ideas in this
area were used in grotesque ways
It seems to me like another route towards postulating ideas of human perfectibility, though, and they don’t lead to nice places.


----------



## Spanner (Mar 31, 2021)

Raheem said:


> Unlikely.





Raheem said:


> We also can't know what a newborn experiences, true. Notwithstanding that some people claim memories of their very early life. I don't see how this has anything to do with erasing anything, though. Knowing what an animal or a newborn is experiencing was never there in the first place.


But we DO know about all these experiences, because they have been studied for decades...centuries in some cases. And implicitly ‘understood’ for millennia because every mother has given birth and everyone has experienced childbirth at a very young age


----------



## Raheem (Mar 31, 2021)

Spanner said:


> But we DO know about all these experiences, because they have been studied for decades...centuries in some cases. And ‘understood’ for millennia.


You can only ever study your own experiences.


----------



## Shechemite (Mar 31, 2021)

What about people with lived experience?


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Mar 31, 2021)

Raheem said:


> You can only ever study your own experiences.


That's soooo wrong, it's hard to know where to begin.

What to recommend as reading? GA Bradshaw's Elephants on the Edge is a decent start, applying psychology and psychiatry ideas developed for humans, such as PTSD, to explain what happens to elephants as their habitats and societies are destroyed.

It works. Why? Because we're really not so different. We may not be able to talk to them directly, but that doesn't mean we can't have any understanding.


----------



## Spanner (Mar 31, 2021)

Raheem said:


> You can only ever study your own experiences.


Hard disagree. Why?


----------



## Spanner (Mar 31, 2021)

Raheem said:


> You can only ever study your own experiences.


I agree with this if you mean: the only way to understand your OWN place in the world is through self-reflection.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Mar 31, 2021)

Spanner said:


> I agree with this if you mean: the only way to understand your OWN place in the world is through self-reflection.


I agree with it only if you're talking about philosophical solipsism, which is all very well but doesn't get us anywhere with anything, and ultimately isn't really particularly interesting.


----------



## Spanner (Mar 31, 2021)

littlebabyjesus said:


> I agree with it only if you're talking about philosophical solipsism, which is all very well but doesn't get us anywhere with anything, and ultimately isn't really particularly interesting.


Well I’ll go away then. Thanks for the feedback.


----------



## Raheem (Mar 31, 2021)

I


littlebabyjesus said:


> That's soooo wrong, it's hard to know where to begin.
> 
> What to recommend as reading? GA Bradshaw's Elephants on the Edge is a decent start, applying psychology and psychiatry ideas developed for humans, such as PTSD, to explain what happens to elephants as their habitats and societies are destroyed.
> 
> It works. Why? Because we're really not so different. We may not be able to talk to them directly, but that doesn't mean we can't have any understanding.


Most of the elephants would disagree with you. You can tell from the doubt they communicate with their tusks.


----------



## Louis MacNeice (Mar 31, 2021)

Border Reiver said:


> What has your post have to do with the OP?



Unwilling or unable to engage with your own content on to ignore you go.

Louis MacNeice


----------



## bmd (Mar 31, 2021)

Border Reiver said:


> Having read the actual words she used I note that she claims that she supports the "single sex exemptions" in the law. With one small exception there are no single sex exemptions that do not apply to persons with a Gender Recognition Certificate. There is also an understanding that people transitioning have access to female places if they are fulfilling the requirement to live in the target gender for two years.
> 
> Whether unwittingly or not she is refusing to recognise the clear legal rights of certain persons with a Y chromosome to occupy female areas. This is unlawful; as unlawful as excluding people on the grounds of race, gender or sexuality.



I appreciate the clarification. Can I ask, being highly aware that this is a sensitive issue, why do some natural born women wish to create spaces where they alone are welcome? Is it because they do not accept some trans women? All trans women?


----------



## Geri (Mar 31, 2021)

bmd said:


> I appreciate the clarification. Can I ask, being highly aware that this is a sensitive issue, why do some natural born women wish to create spaces where they alone are welcome? Is it because they do not accept some trans women? All trans women?



Some women feel uncomfortable around men in circumstances where they are vulnerable, e.g. getting dressed/undressed, undergoing medical procedures etc. 

Women who have been the victim of rape or sexual assault very often have a trauma response to males, which is something they cannot control - so a transwoman can trigger this. It is not a conscious reaction and they are not being transphobic, but female only spaces can be very important for their healing.


----------



## bmd (Mar 31, 2021)

Geri said:


> Some women feel uncomfortable around men in circumstances where they are vulnerable, e.g. getting dressed/undressed, undergoing medical procedures etc.
> 
> Women who have been the victim of rape or sexual assault very often have a trauma response to males, which is something they cannot control - so a transwoman can trigger this. It is not a conscious reaction and they are not being transphobic, but female only spaces can be very important for their healing.



I think that's fair enough. If we do not wish any harm to anyone whilst accommodating all others, then this must be fine, mustn't it?


----------



## Border Reiver (Mar 31, 2021)

bmd said:


> I appreciate the clarification. Can I ask, being highly aware that this is a sensitive issue, why do some natural born women wish to create spaces where they alone are welcome? Is it because they do not accept some trans women? All trans women?


That question is best answered by someone who believes that. In my view, fear of the unknown and fear if the other. Same as any discrimination. But that is just my view.


----------



## bmd (Mar 31, 2021)

Border Reiver said:


> That question is best answered by someone who believes that. In my view, fear of the unknown and fear if the other. Same as any discrimination. But that is just my view.



And you do not believe that fear, under any circumstances, is warranted?


----------



## Border Reiver (Mar 31, 2021)

Geri said:


> Some women feel uncomfortable around men in circumstances where they are vulnerable, e.g. getting dressed/undressed, undergoing medical procedures etc.
> 
> Women who have been the victim of rape or sexual assault very often have a trauma response to males, which is something they cannot control - so a transwoman can trigger this. It is not a conscious reaction and they are not being transphobic, but female only spaces can be very important for their healing.


The problem is that according to the current law most social spaces cannot be cis-women only spaces. In the same way that ethnic minorities may not be excluded from most social spaces or non-personal interactions, nor can trans women be do excluded.

We do not makes me exceptions for racists or other sexists.


----------



## Border Reiver (Mar 31, 2021)

bmd said:


> I think that's fair enough. If we do not wish any harm to anyone whilst accommodating all others, then this must be fine, mustn't it?



So racists should be similarly accommodated?


----------



## Border Reiver (Mar 31, 2021)

bmd said:


> And you do not believe that fear, under any circumstances, is warranted?


It is warranted. But like warranted fear of racists it cannot be lawfully accommodated by removing rights of other people who are not actually a threat.


----------



## bmd (Mar 31, 2021)

Border Reiver said:


> It is warranted. But like warranted fear of racists it cannot be lawfully accommodated by removing rights of other people who are not actually a threat.



Isn't most fear irrational though?


----------



## bmd (Mar 31, 2021)

Border Reiver said:


> It is warranted. But like warranted fear of racists it cannot be lawfully accommodated by removing rights of other people who are not actually a threat.



Fear, being irrational in a lot of cases, like when you have been attacked and see the likelihood of another attack in a lot of places, doesn't really take that into account.


----------



## Border Reiver (Mar 31, 2021)

bmd said:


> Fear, being irrational in a lot of cases, like when you have been attacked and see the likelihood of another attack in a lot of places, doesn't really take that into account.


The law is blind to that. In the same way that a white man who had been attacked in public by a black man could not use his fear as a reason to exclude all black men from certain spaces so that his fear was reduced.


----------



## Border Reiver (Mar 31, 2021)

bmd said:


> Isn't most fear irrational though?


Yes. But that does not mean that it can be addressed by reducing the rights of others.


----------



## bmd (Mar 31, 2021)

Border Reiver said:


> The law is blind to that. In the same way that a white man who had been attacked in public by a black man could not use his fear as a reason to exclude all black men from certain spaces so that his fear was reduced.



Yes, I can see that. I guess this all comes back to the question of authenticity. For some. I have read a lot about the experience of trans people. How they just want to live without the constant sandpaper rub of you're not right, you. I get it. I also get what natural born women are saying and I'm not sure if this is even the ground they stick their flag on.


----------



## Santino (Mar 31, 2021)

Border Reiver said:


> Sealioning - Wikipedia
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I don't think kabbes' behaviour qualifies as sealioning then. Can you explain why you think it does?


----------



## Santino (Mar 31, 2021)

Border Reiver said:


> The law is blind to that. In the same way that a white man who had been attacked in public by a black man could not use his fear as a reason to exclude all black men from certain spaces so that his fear was reduced.


But women are entitled to exclude men from their spaces. So your analogy is no good here.


----------



## Athos (Mar 31, 2021)

Border Reiver said:


> It is warranted. But like warranted fear of racists it cannot be lawfully accommodated by removing rights of other people who are not actually a threat.



I think your characterisation is a gross oversimplification, and one that's quite dismissive of the fears of some particularly vulnerable people.

Not only does your framing of the issue fail to take into account psychological harm that arises from fear (which occurs regardless of how 'legitimate' that fear is), but, also, it plays fast and loose with the idea of threat.  Women are well aware that they live under constant threat from people with penises (the only people in law who can commit rape); *as a group*, they represent a threat - that's the basis of single-sex protections for women.  It's quite possible to argue that some individuals or sub-groups within that group represent less risk, but there might be good policy reasons not to favour such exceptionalism. For instance, any individual could argue that, absent any specific evidence that he is more likely to harm someone than a woman who is allowed into a space, he should be let in.  But I don't need to explain why that's resisted. 

Now, as it happens, I agree with you that the empirical evidence from places which have allowed inclusion suggests that it does not result in more attacks on the women who would already be in those spaces (and reduces harm to women who might otherwise be excluded).  And so I'd like to see a world where women are keen to welcome trans women into their spaces (albeit I'm less keen on that being imposed on those who aren't).  But I don't think that necessarily means all counter-arguments are analogous to racism.


----------



## Border Reiver (Mar 31, 2021)

Santino said:


> But women are entitled to exclude men from their spaces. So your analogy is no good here.


No they are not if "women" excludes trans-women with a Gender Recognition Certificate, or persons currently formally transitioning, and the space is public.


----------



## Border Reiver (Mar 31, 2021)

Athos said:


> I think your characterisation is a gross oversimplification, and one that's quite dismissive of the fears of some particularly vulnerable people.
> 
> Not only does your framing of the issue fail to take into account psychological harm that arises from fear (which occurs regardless of how 'legitimate' that fear is), but, also, it plays fast and loose with the idea of threat.  Women are well aware that they live under constant threat from people with penises (the only people in law who can commit rape); *as a group*, they represent a threat - that's the basis of single-sex protections for women.  It's quite possible to argue that some individuals or sub-groups within that group represent less risk, but there might be good policy reasons not to favour such exceptionalism. For instance, any individual could argue that, absent any specific evidence that he is more likely to harm someone than a woman who is allowed into a space, he should be let in.  But I don't need to explain why that's resisted.
> 
> Now, as it happens, I agree with you that the empirical evidence from places which have allowed inclusion suggests that it does not result in more attacks on the women who would already be in those spaces (and reduces harm to women who might otherwise be excluded).  And so I'd like to see a world where women are keen to welcome trans women into their spaces (albeit I'm less keen on that being imposed on those who aren't).  But I don't think that necessarily means all counter-arguments are analogous to racism.


I am merely quoting the law. Persons who wish to remove rights from trans women are little different from other racists, sexists, and other people who support unlawful discrimination.


----------



## bmd (Mar 31, 2021)

Border Reiver said:


> No they are not if "women" excludes trans-women with a Gender Recognition Certificate, or persons currently formally transitioning, and the space is public.



But he's right, isn't he? That invalidates your analogy.

Are you ok with Trans people being treated separately?


----------



## Border Reiver (Mar 31, 2021)

bmd said:


> But he's right, isn't he? That invalidates your analogy.
> 
> Are you ok with Trans people being treated separately?


I am supporting trans women's rights over women who seek to exclude them from female spaces.


----------



## Santino (Mar 31, 2021)

Border Reiver said:


> No they are not if "women" excludes trans-women with a Gender Recognition Certificate, or persons currently formally transitioning, and the space is public.


That wasn't my point. My point is that women are entitled to exclude men on the basis of their safety, even if some or most men aren't a threat to them. Your analogy about racism is no good here.


----------



## bmd (Mar 31, 2021)

Border Reiver said:


> I am supporting trans women's rights over women who seek to exclude them from female spaces.



But there is a precedent for excluding one group from a space for a certain reason. Why can't women do that with another group?


----------



## Santino (Mar 31, 2021)

Border Reiver said:


> Sealioning - Wikipedia
> 
> 
> 
> ...





Santino said:


> I don't think kabbes' behaviour qualifies as sealioning then. Can you explain why you think it does?


Could you address this?


----------



## Border Reiver (Mar 31, 2021)

bmd said:


> But there is a precedent for excluding one group from a space for a certain reason. Why can't women do that with another group?


That does not affect the rights of trans women enshrined in law. You are arguing for separate but equal.


----------



## bmd (Mar 31, 2021)

Border Reiver said:


> That does not affect the rights of trans women enshrined in law. You are arguing for separate but equal.



Ok, that then. Now can women have their own space?


----------



## Border Reiver (Mar 31, 2021)

Santino said:


> Could you address this?


"pursuing people with persistent requests for evidence or repeated questions, while maintaining a pretense of civility and sincerity.[1][2][3][4] It may take the form of "incessant, bad-faith invitations"

I repeatedly said that he was asking questions that were diversions. He continued asking such questions. He is on ignore as he was taking up too much bandwidth.


----------



## Border Reiver (Mar 31, 2021)

bmd said:


> Ok, that then. Now can women have their own space?


Only if they admit trans women. Unless the law is changed (it is not going to be).


----------



## bmd (Mar 31, 2021)

Border Reiver said:


> Only if they admit trans women. Unless the law is changed (it is not going to be).



Are there actually any trans women who would want to frequent a space set up for natural born women? I can't imagine that it would be a very fun night out. In fact, who would set up the space anyway? It's a complete non-argument now I come to think of it.


----------



## Athos (Mar 31, 2021)

Border Reiver said:


> No they are not if "women" excludes trans-women with a Gender Recognition Certificate, or persons currently formally transitioning, and the space is public.



Males (including trans women (with or without a GRC)) can be lawfully excluded from female-only spaces in certain conditions.


----------



## Border Reiver (Mar 31, 2021)

Athos said:


> Males (including trans women (with or without a GRC)) can be lawfully excluded from female-only spaces in certain conditions.


Extremely limited conditions. Quoted in a post above. The massive majority of trans-wonrn with a GID or working towards one are protected in the vast majority of cases.


----------



## kabbes (Mar 31, 2021)

Border Reiver said:


> "pursuing people with persistent requests for evidence or repeated questions, while maintaining a pretense of civility and sincerity.[1][2][3][4] It may take the form of "incessant, bad-faith invitations"
> 
> I repeatedly said that he was asking questions that were diversions. He continued asking such questions. He is on ignore as he was taking up too much bandwidth.


I wasn’t asking you questions.  I was directly and in good faith pointing out that you don’t know what you’re talking about, you’re using terms you don’t understand and you’re presenting a hopelessly oversimplified view of humans as atomised monads whose only self-definition comes from within, thus ignoring the fact that people always exist embedded within wider social relations.  You are ignoring all power relations, all politics, all history.  Yours is just a neoliberal triumph of personal freedom and choice over all social considerations.

You’re doing it again now by insisting that women never have a need to create single-sex places of safety.

You can ignore me if you want — you were ignoring me anyway, frankly — but I’m not going to ignore your nonsense.


----------



## Border Reiver (Mar 31, 2021)

bmd said:


> Are there actually any trans women who would want to frequent a space set up for natural born women? I can't imagine that it would be a very fun night out. In fact, who would set up the space anyway? It's a complete non-argument now I come to think of it.


Whether or not there is demand, access cannot be lawfully denied. Protection does not include personal association, as with other race and gender protections.


----------



## Edie (Mar 31, 2021)

Border Reiver said:


> Only if they admit trans women. Unless the law is changed (it is not going to be).


This is wrong. Women should be able to have single sex wards, refuges, and prison cells. Trans women should be accomodated separately. Public facilities like toilets and changing rooms should be all-in-one single use as that simply resolves the issue.


----------



## Border Reiver (Mar 31, 2021)

Edie said:


> This is wrong. Women should be able to have single sex wards, refuges, and prison cells. Trans women should be accomodated separately. Public facilities like toilets and changing rooms should be all-in-one single use as that simply resolves the issue.


You are entitled to that opinion. The law differs (except for refuges). Your views are no more powerful than people arguing against racial equality laws.


----------



## Athos (Mar 31, 2021)

Border Reiver said:


> I am merely quoting the law. Persons who wish to remove rights from trans women are little different from other racists, sexists, and other people who support unlawful discrimination.



I don't think you are just quoting the law. 

I would argue against any rolling back of the current legal protections for trans people.

But much of women's concerns arises from proposals to change the law, which they say weakens their protections.  I think it'd be more positive to engage with those fears than dismiss them as analogous to racism.  (Though I appreciate that this is made harder by the fact that there are transphobes using _prima facie_ reasonable points in bad faith.)


----------



## Border Reiver (Mar 31, 2021)

Athos said:


> I don't think you are just quoting the law.
> 
> I would argue against any rolling back of the current legal protections for trans people.
> 
> But much of women's concerns arises from proposals to change the law, which they say weakens their protections.  I think it'd be more positive to engage with those fears than dismiss them as analogous to racism.  (Though I appreciate that this is made harder by the fact that there are transphobes using _prima facie_ reasonable points in bad faith.)



Current legal protections allow almost all trans women with GIDs, or working towards one, access to almost all women only spaces. It is that simple.

I am not arguing here for further extensions such as self identification (although I support reviewing the law in that direction).


----------



## bmd (Mar 31, 2021)

Border Reiver said:


> You are entitled to that opinion. The law differs (except for refuges). Your views are no more powerful than people *arguing against racial equality laws.*



Why do you keep saying this? Are you attempting to invalidate any views except your own? You realise that anything you say here is not legally binding, nor will your words be used against you in a court of law.


----------



## Athos (Mar 31, 2021)

Border Reiver said:


> Current legal protections allow almost all trans women with GIDs, or working towards one, access to almost all women only spaces. It is that simple.
> 
> I am not arguing here for further extensions such as self identification (although I support reviewing the law in that direction).



I'm not arguing with your (current*) claim about what the law says.

(*Now you've tweaked it to acknowledge it is legal to exclude in some circumstances.)


----------



## Border Reiver (Mar 31, 2021)

bmd said:


> Why do you keep saying this? Are you attempting to invalidate any views except your own? You realise that anything you say here is not legally binding, nor will your words be used against you in a court of law.


No. It is a fact. Certain groups are protected by law against discrimination in certain spheres of social interaction. This includes race, gender, gender identification, and many other categories. 

Denying legal rights to one class of that group  is no different from denying it to another. There is a direct equivalence.


----------



## Border Reiver (Mar 31, 2021)

Athos said:


> I'm not arguing with your (current*) claim about what the law says.
> 
> (*Now you've tweaked it to acknowledge it is legal to exclude in some circumstances.)


I have not denied some minor exceptions (see discussion above).


----------



## bmd (Mar 31, 2021)

Border Reiver said:


> No. It is a fact. Certain groups are protected by law against discrimination in certain spheres of social interaction. This includes race, gender, gender identification, and many other categories.
> 
> Denying legal rights to one class of that group  is no different from denying it to another. There is a direct equivalence.



And yet the Racial Discrmination Act came about from a set of circumstances that could not, wholly, be applied to Trans history. You simply saying "that's the same, treat it as such" isn't helpful. Imo, of course.


----------



## Border Reiver (Mar 31, 2021)

bmd said:


> Why do you keep saying this? Are you attempting to invalidate any views except your own? You realise that anything you say here is not legally binding, nor will your words be used against you in a court of law.



People are entitled to believe that people should be denied their legal rights. I do not share that belief. 

Believing that does not change the rights of the persons protected by such legislation. People who refuse admission are potentially acting unlawfully.


----------



## bmd (Mar 31, 2021)

Athos said:


> I'm not arguing with your (current*) claim about what the law says.
> 
> (*Now you've tweaked it to acknowledge it is legal to exclude in some circumstances.)



How rude! Who else do we know who does that whenever it suits them?


----------



## Edie (Mar 31, 2021)

Border Reiver said:


> You are entitled to that opinion. The law differs (except for refuges). Your views are no more powerful than people arguing against racial equality laws.


I’m talking about what I think it morally right, not the law.


----------



## Athos (Mar 31, 2021)

Border Reiver said:


> You are entitled to that opinion. The law differs (except for refuges). Your views are no more powerful than people arguing against racial equality laws.



I've no issue with your substantive views on the issue, but the attempted smears of all opponents is not only a tactical error (which has demonstrably driven many into the hands of extremists), but it's based on a flawed analogy.   Can you really not see the contextual differences between balancing white/black rights versus female/male rights?


----------



## Athos (Mar 31, 2021)

bmd said:


> How rude! Who else do we know who does that whenever it suits them?



No cross thread beef. If you're still smarting from being shown up on that other thread, argue you case there rather than sniping here.


----------



## Border Reiver (Mar 31, 2021)

bmd said:


> And yet the Racial Discrmination Act came about from a set of circumstances that could not, wholly, be applied to Trans history. You simply saying "that's the same, treat it as such" isn't helpful. Imo, of course.



The laws protecting such groups are largely identical with a few minor exceptions. It is equally unlawful to exclude trans women from most female spaces as to deny someone of a different race or sexuality.


----------



## Border Reiver (Mar 31, 2021)

Edie said:


> I’m talking about what I think it morally right, not the law.


That is another discussion.

The question here is 

"Is a social media platform justified in banning someone who expressed opinions that trans women should not be allowed access to female spaces." 

They would ban extreme racists and sexists, so why not ban extreme trans rights deniers?


----------



## bmd (Mar 31, 2021)

Border Reiver said:


> The laws protecting such groups are largely identical with a few minor exceptions. It is equally unlawful to exclude trans women from most female spaces as to deny someone of a different race or sexuality.



But what did we take from White people to give Black people those rights?


----------



## Edie (Mar 31, 2021)

Border Reiver said:


> That is another discussion.
> 
> The question here is
> 
> ...


It is not a separate discussion. You are allowed to express opinions in society that are not consistent with the law. Including on social media.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Mar 31, 2021)

Border Reiver said:


> That is another discussion.
> 
> The question here is
> 
> ...


You don't get to decide what the discussion is. 

One of the problems here is that there is no easy equivalence between racism and transphobia. 

(I also think it was unhelpful and wrong of the person on Twitter to attempt this equivalence.)

Until both sides of this divide find a way to accept that the views on sex/gender of the other side are different but legitimate, or at least understandable and coherent, the impasse will continue, and people will continue to talk past one another where there is a collision between their interests.

In that, this is very different from racism or sexism or homophobia.


----------



## Santino (Mar 31, 2021)

Border Reiver said:


> "pursuing people with persistent requests for evidence or repeated questions, while maintaining a pretense of civility and sincerity.[1][2][3][4] It may take the form of "incessant, bad-faith invitations"
> 
> I repeatedly said that he was asking questions that were diversions. He continued asking such questions. He is on ignore as he was taking up too much bandwidth.


I disagree, his questions were about the meaning of what you posted. How is that sealioning?


----------



## Athos (Mar 31, 2021)

Border Reiver said:


> That is another discussion.
> 
> The question here is
> 
> ...



That's you trying to artificially narrow the debate; there's nothing in that question that suggests the discussing should be limited to the current legal position.


----------



## Knotted (Mar 31, 2021)

For what it's worth, I liked the rejection of both gender and sex essentialism as outlined in the links hitmouse provided. I also thought Edie's proposals for same sex spaces were sensible. Not sure how transgendered people would view either of those though, and there maybe factors that are being overlooked. But how would I know? I'll leave it at that.


----------



## Athos (Mar 31, 2021)

Santino said:


> I disagree, his questions were about the meaning of what you posted. How is that sealioning?



Is not. It's a ruse to try to save face whilst avoiding engaging with difficult questions when he was clearly out of his depth.


----------



## hitmouse (Mar 31, 2021)

Knotted said:


> For what it's worth, I liked the rejection of both gender and sex essentialism as outlined in the links hitmouse provided. I also thought Edie's proposals for same sex spaces were sensible. Not sure how transgendered people would view either of those though, and there maybe factors that are being overlooked. But how would I know? I'll leave it at that.


Fwiw, obviously trans people aren't a homogenous group and will disagree on things, the same as anyone else, but pretty sure both the links I posted were written by trans people. (Just realised I replied to a post starting fwiw with a post starting fwiw there.)


----------



## LDC (Mar 31, 2021)

Traumatized women wanting some spaces where they don't feel threatened is just like racism. Fucking hell, brilliant analysis.


----------



## bmd (Mar 31, 2021)

LynnDoyleCooper said:


> Traumatized women wanting some spaces where they don't feel threatened is just like racism. Fucking hell, brilliant analysis.



But then we come back to the definition of women wrt Transgender. They are women. Some will be traumatised. 

I would prefer it if we could simply say that these spaces are for natural born women. I would also prefer it if we didn't discriminate against Transgender women because of that differentiation.


----------



## Athos (Mar 31, 2021)

bmd said:


> I would prefer it if we could simply say that these spaces are for natural born women. I would also prefer it if we didn't discriminate against Transgender women because of that differentiation.



These two are at odds, though. Saying a place is just for cis women does discriminate against trans women.  The question is really whether or not any discrimination is justified. Currently the law says it is in very narrow circumstances; some want to see those circumstances extended, some what to see them done away with.


----------



## Raheem (Mar 31, 2021)

Edie said:


> Public facilities like toilets and changing rooms should be all-in-one single use as that simply resolves the issue.


What issue are you referring to here? If the issue really were some women's difficulty sharing space with someone who might have a penis, it's not totally clear how unisex changing rooms resolve that.


----------



## Shechemite (Mar 31, 2021)

Border Reiver said:


> That is another discussion.
> 
> The question here is
> 
> ...



extreme?


----------



## Border Reiver (Mar 31, 2021)

Athos said:


> That's you trying to artificially narrow the debate; there's nothing in that question that suggests the discussing should be limited to the current legal position.


Try this reasoning. Extreme opinions that support unlawful actions against racial groups are forbidden by some social media sites including Twitter. Denying the rights of trans women is advocating unlawful action against that group. Twitter forbids such posts for the same reason as racist posts.


----------



## Santino (Mar 31, 2021)

The law is good and anyone who advocates breaking it is bad. I am very smart.


----------



## Border Reiver (Mar 31, 2021)

MadeInBedlam said:


> extreme?


Denying that trans women with a GID are legally women and advocating denial of their legal rights. That is extreme.


----------



## Athos (Mar 31, 2021)

Border Reiver said:


> Try this reasoning. Extreme opinions that support unlawful actions against racial groups are forbidden by some social media sites including Twitter. Denying the rights of trans women is advocating unlawful action against that group. Twitter forbids such posts for the same reason as racist posts.



Lol.  Advocating a change in the law isn't advocating unlawful action.  Not to mention that much civil disobedience is unlawful - you'd have seen Twitter ban MLK? !


----------



## Border Reiver (Mar 31, 2021)

Santino said:


> The law is good and anyone who advocates breaking it is bad. I am very smart.


No. Twitter uses the Law to decide on which posts it will allow. Posts advocating unlawful denial of protected rights are often banned.


----------



## Border Reiver (Mar 31, 2021)

Athos said:


> Lol.  Advocating a change in the law isn't advocating unlawful action.  Not to mention that much civil disobedience is unlawful - you'd have seen Twitter ban MLK? !


Try advocating white safe spaces from fear of black crime. Or safe spaces to protect against fear of predatory homosexuals. Or immigrant free spaces. Or Non Jewish suburbs. Or banning mosques...


----------



## Athos (Mar 31, 2021)

Border Reiver said:


> No. Twitter uses the Law to decide on which posts it will allow. Posts advocating unlawful denial of protected rights are often banned.



Then you're reducing the question of whether Twitter should have done something to whether or not Twitter applied its policies.  Not only is that not how most people would understand the question, its also a boring and trivial point.


----------



## Santino (Mar 31, 2021)

Border Reiver said:


> Try advocating white safe spaces from fear of black crime. Or safe spaces to protect against fear of predatory homosexuals. Or immigrant free spaces. Or Non Jewish suburbs. Or banning mosques...


Don't do this anyone - he's trying to trick you.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Mar 31, 2021)

Probably the nastiest bit of this for me is the way Vicky was 'outed' to her employer for the opinion she expressed on Facebook. 

Way too much of this kind of thing going on.


----------



## Athos (Mar 31, 2021)

Border Reiver said:


> Try advocating white safe spaces from fear of black crime. Or safe spaces to protect against fear of predatory homosexuals. Or immigrant free spaces. Or Non Jewish suburbs. Or banning mosques...



Those things are unequivocally  unjustifiable discrimination, and not analogous to the OP, for the reasons set out already.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Mar 31, 2021)

Border Reiver said:


> Try advocating white safe spaces from fear of black crime. Or safe spaces to protect against fear of predatory homosexuals. Or immigrant free spaces. Or Non Jewish suburbs. Or banning mosques...


With these examples, you don't quite make the point you think you do. 

It's almost like the people you're talking to have thought about these issues before.


----------



## Border Reiver (Mar 31, 2021)

Athos said:


> Those things are unequivocally  unjustifiable discrimination, and not analogous to the OP, for the reasons set out already.


Why is denying the established legal rights of trans women different from denying the established rights of ethnic minorities? Both could be seen as hate speech. Twitter believes that.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Mar 31, 2021)

Border Reiver said:


> Why is denying the established legal rights of trans women different from denying the established rights of ethnic minorities? Both could be seen as hate speech. Twitter believes that.


Can you quote the bit about 'denying the established legal rights of trans women'? All I see is this:



> _I proudly stand for the rights of women and the single-sex exemptions that are enshrined in equality law_


----------



## Border Reiver (Mar 31, 2021)

littlebabyjesus said:


> With these examples, you don't quite make the point you think you do.
> 
> It's almost like the people you're talking to have thought about these issues before.


I was working with what we then called trans-sexuals when you were probably still in school. I have five decades of thinking about this subject.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Mar 31, 2021)

Border Reiver said:


> I was working with what we then called trans-sexuals when you were probably still in school. I have five decades of thinking about this subject.


Have a gold star.


----------



## Athos (Mar 31, 2021)

Border Reiver said:


> Why is denying the established legal rights of trans women different from denying the established rights of ethnic minorities? Both could be seen as hate speech. Twitter believes that.



We're just going round and round, now.  But, in short context; there's a very different dynamic between white people asserting rights against black people, and females asserting rights against males.


----------



## Kevbad the Bad (Mar 31, 2021)

Border Reiver said:


> I was working with what we then called trans-sexuals when you were probably still in school. I have five decades of thinking about this subject.


Try thinking about something else for a bit.


----------



## Border Reiver (Mar 31, 2021)

LynnDoyleCooper said:


> Traumatized women wanting some spaces where they don't feel threatened is just like racism. Fucking hell, brilliant analysis.


Twitter recognises hate speech (unlawful denial of rights) whether race or trans gender as unacceptable on its platform.


----------



## Border Reiver (Mar 31, 2021)

Kevbad the Bad said:


> Try thinking about something else for a bit.


Try contributing to debate rather than engaging in abuse.


----------



## Border Reiver (Mar 31, 2021)

Athos said:


> We're just going round and round, now.  But, in short context; there's a very different dynamic between white people asserting rights against black people, and females asserting rights against males.


In your opinion. Transgender womenare legally female and not male for most matters.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Mar 31, 2021)

Border Reiver said:


> Twitter recognises hate speech (unlawful denial of rights) whether race or trans gender as unacceptable on its platform.


Can you quote the hate speech you're referring to? Thanks.


----------



## Border Reiver (Mar 31, 2021)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Can you quote the bit about 'denying the established legal rights of trans women'? All I see is this:



Because later she later qualifies it to mean that it excludes trans women from access to single sex spaces.




littlebabyjesus said:


> Can you quote the hate speech you're referring to? Thanks.


Denying the established rights of trans women to access certain spaces. Try suggesting denying such rights to other protected groups.


----------



## smokedout (Mar 31, 2021)

bmd said:


> Ok, that then. Now can women have their own space?



It really depends what you mean here.  If you mean can those born physically female, those who identify and live as women, and those who are socially coded as women have their own spaces then the answer is yes, in fact that is what has happened for a hundred years or more.  There is growing evidence of trans people living in stealth in Victorian times and beyond, it's near certain they would have used single sex spaces (as much as they existed) inline with their aquired gender - to do anything else would have been far too dangerous.  So this is the system we have had for pretty much as long as single sex spaces have existed.  It is a system which runs on pretty basic common sense, with a few minor legal safeguards such as the single sex exemption, and which has shown itself to be workable and safe over the decades.  It may not be perfect, masculine appearing women sometimes get harassed, some people might feel nervous around a masculine appearing woman or trans woman, and things like single sex toilets can cause problems for parents and people with carers, but it's what we've had for a long time and there doesn't seem any real social appetite outside of a few quarters to change that.

If you mean can women (or men) have their own spaces in which they can guarantee that every single persons who uses it is XX/XY or has the correct genitals then that is probably socially impossible without horrifyingly draconion measures.  Firstly which do you want, chromosones, genitals or both?  And how do you check?  Which of the constellation of biological sex indicators and social signifiers should be required to enter a single sex space without harassment?  Could we no longer have male doctors, porters and visitors in women's hospital wards in case someone was made to feel uncomfortable by the presence of a male?  Should male healthcare workers, guards and maintenance staff be kept out of women's prisons?  Should every single sex space have the same assesssment criteria you might have in a refuge (and even now that assessment cannot be fully guaranteed).  And if this is the case, and we're all carrying sex ID cards, then why stop there?  Why not keep out people with certain criminal records?  Or from certain socially marginalised groups?  What kind of society would this look like, what other social attitudes  and pressures might emerge around gender and presentation?  How would this impact on trans, intersex or gender nonconforming people?  Perhaps you'd need to ban crossdressing, just in case, it's been illegal in societies before and still is in a few countries.  Perhaps there would be calls for segregation to be further extended to other spheres.

The extreme conservative and religious right is pushing this so hard they are prepared to drop every principle they possess and work with lesbians and pro-choice feminists to achieve it.  Why is that?  If these aims were ever brought to fruition would they be implemented by a radical feminist government or something very different?  Is this really the society people want?  The reason there is a split in feminism over this is not because younger feminists have been brainwashed by the woke into 'being kind', or even just that there is a social shift towards trans acceptance but because some have the imagination to see where these demands might lead.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Mar 31, 2021)

Border Reiver said:


> Because later she qualifie
> 
> Denying the established rights of trans women to access certain spaces. Try suggesting denying such rights to other protected groups.


That's another 'no', then?


----------



## kabbes (Mar 31, 2021)

Border Reiver said:


> Try contributing to debate rather than engaging in abuse.


Well there’s irony


----------



## smokedout (Mar 31, 2021)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Can you quote the hate speech you're referring to? Thanks.



I think twitter should ban boring men who endlessly philosophise about things which don't affect them, that they have no lived experience of and don't actually even know that much about.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Mar 31, 2021)

smokedout said:


> I think twitter should ban boring men who endlessly philosophise about thing which don't affect them, that they have no lived experience of and don't actually even know that much about.


If that's aimed at me, you're making some massive fucking assumptions. Just because I don't share personal stuff doesn't mean it isn't there. Fuck off.


----------



## Border Reiver (Mar 31, 2021)

smokedout said:


> It really depends what you mean here.  If you mean can those born physically female, those who identify and live as women, and those who are socially coded as women have their own spaces then the answer is yes, in fact that's is what has happened for a hundred years or more.  There is growing evidence of trans people living in stealth in Victorian times and beyond, it's near certain they had have used single sex spaces (as much as they existed) inline with their aquired gender - to do anything else would have been far too dangerous.  So this is the system we have had for pretty much as long as single sex spaces have existed.  It is a system which runs on pretty basic common sense, with a few minor legal safeguards such as the single sex exemption, and which has shown itself to be workable and safe over the decades.  It may not be perfect, masculine appearing women sometimes get harassed, some people might feel nervous around a masculine appearing woman or trans woman, and things like single sex toilets can cause problems for parents and people with carers, but it's what we've had for a long time and there doesn't seem any real social appetite outside of a few quarters to change that.
> 
> If you mean can women (or men) have their own spaces in which they can guarantee that every single persons who uses it is XX/XY or has the correct genitals then that is probably socially impossible without horrifyingly draconion measures.  Firstly which do you want, chromosones, genitals or both?  And how do you check?  Which of the constellation of biological sex indicators and social signifiers should be required to enter a single sex space without harassment?  Could we no longer have male doctors, porters and visitors in women's hospital wards in case someone was made to feel uncomfortable by the presence of a male?  Should male healthcare workers, guards and maintenance staff be kept out of women's prisons?  Should every single sex space have the same assesssment criteria you might have in a refuge, and even now that assessment cannot be fully guaranteed.  And if this is the case, and we're all carrying sex ID cards, then why stop there?  Why not keep out people with certain criminal records?  Or from certain socially marginalised groups?  What kind of society would this look like, what other social attitudes might and pressures might emerge around gender and presentation?  How would this impact on trans, intersex or gender nonconforming people?  Perhaps you'd need to ban crossdressing, just in case, it's been illegal in societies before and still is in a few countries.  Perhaps there would be calls for segregation to be further extended to other spheres.
> 
> The extreme conservative and religious right is pushing this so hard they are prepared to drop every principle they possess and work with lesbians and pro-choice feminists to achieve it.  Why is that?  If these aims were ever brought to fruition would they be implemented by a radical feminist government or something very different?  Is this really the society people want?  The reason there is a split in feminism over this is not because younger feminists have been brainwashed by the woke into 'being kind', or even just that there is a social shift towards trans acceptance but because some have the imagination to see where some of these demands might lead.


Such a clear explanation. Thanks.


----------



## Border Reiver (Mar 31, 2021)

Kevbad the Bad said:


> Try thinking about something else for a bit.


What, and engage in diversion like many posts here? The question at point is twitter's reaction.


----------



## smokedout (Mar 31, 2021)

dp


----------



## two sheds (Mar 31, 2021)

Bit of a side question, but are Twitter and Facebook so strict on banning posters who come out with overtly racist and sexist language? I thought that was a major part of the problem that they seem perfectly happy to allow such behaviour.


----------



## Shechemite (Mar 31, 2021)

More broadly, this is what drives so many people mental - needing to self censor to a degree that is (arguably) unnecessary, whilst having to put up with obvious bigotry, dependent on the ‘identities’ being discussed.


----------



## Athos (Mar 31, 2021)

Border Reiver said:


> In your opinion. Transgender womenare legally female and not male for most matters.



Ignoring the fact that laws can and do change,  if you can't see a difference in the social dynamics of those situations (regardless of the strict legal position), then I think you'll struggle to empathise with a lot of women on this issue, which will impede progress towards an amicable solution (though you may be fine with that - happy to simply impose your will on them).


----------



## Edie (Mar 31, 2021)

So I cannot, as a natural born woman say that I want single sex prison estate, hospital wards, or domestic violence refuges?

That, according to Border Reiver , is hate speech analogous to racism. Should be closed down, and reported to my employer and the police.

Well, as the only natural born woman posting over the previous few pages, I just like to say fuck that  In the wake of Sarah Everard and the national upswell of feeling about male sexual assault, fuck that. We are entitled to protection. All the best Mr Reiver and all you other men who think we don’t get a say, but I couldn’t gaf 👋🏻


----------



## Border Reiver (Mar 31, 2021)

Athos said:


> Ignoring the fact that laws can and do change,  if you can't see a difference in the social dynamics of those situations (regardless of the strict legal position), then I think you'll struggle to empathise with a lot of women on this issue, which will impede progress towards an amicable solution (though you may be fine with that - happy to simply impose your will on them).



You are wilfuly ignoring the question. "Why has Twitter banned the person?". She was banned for denying rights in a hateful manner. It is their decision his much hate speech they accommodate. 

Question answered.


----------



## Border Reiver (Mar 31, 2021)

Edie said:


> So I cannot, as a natural born woman say that I want single sex prison estate, hospital wards, or domestic violence refuges?
> 
> That, according to Border Reiver , is hate speech analogous to racism.
> 
> Well, as the only natural born woman posting over the previous few pages, I just like to say fuck that  In the wake of Sarah Everard and the national upswell of feeling about male sexual assault, fuck that. We are entitled to protection. All the best Mr Reiver and all you other men who think we don’t get a say, but I couldn’t gaf 👋🏻



You can advocate for it neutrally. She crossed that line by denying established current rights in a manner Twitter disapproved of.


----------



## smokedout (Mar 31, 2021)

two sheds said:


> Bit of a side question, but are Twitter and Facebook so strict on banning posters who come out with overtly racist and sexist language? I thought that was a major part of the problem that they seem perfectly happy to allow such behaviour.



It would be interesting to see an analysis but my guess is that racists and men's rights activists are just as convinced that there is a social media plot to silence 'reasonable debate' as some gender critical activists are.


----------



## Edie (Mar 31, 2021)

Border Reiver said:


> You can advocate for it neutrally. She crossed that line by denying established current rights in a manner Twitter disapproved of.


I can and will advocate it any way I choose Mr Reiver.


----------



## Athos (Mar 31, 2021)

Border Reiver said:


> You are wilfuly ignoring the question. "Why has Twitter banned the person?". She was banned for denying rights in a hateful manner. It is their decision his much hate speech they accommodate.
> 
> Question answered.



I disagree with your answer to the question; I think it's grossly over-simplistic, and it overlooks much of the important context (not least of all the inconsistentcy with which Twitter applies its own rules).  Not that there's any reason I should answer that question, anyway - "wilfuly ignoring" lol!


----------



## Athos (Mar 31, 2021)

Edie said:


> I can and will advocate it any way I choose Mr Reiver.



You'll do as you're told, woman.


----------



## Border Reiver (Mar 31, 2021)

Basically Twitter regards denial of gender identity (as she does) is morally equivalent to denying people who do change their gender identity to their lawful rights.

As I said above, when you are trying to separate views on the question is "If an intact male with a GRC as a woman have full right of access to most female spaces". YES is acceptable. NO is hateful.


----------



## Border Reiver (Mar 31, 2021)

Athos said:


> I disagree with your answer to the question; I think it's grossly over-simplistic, and it overlooks much of the important context (not least of all the inconsistentcy with which Twitter applies its own rules).  Not that there's any reason I should answer that question, anyway - "wilfuly ignoring" lol!


I suspect that concludes our conversation. I have no more to add that will convince you. You are entitled to your opinion as I am to mine.


----------



## Edie (Mar 31, 2021)

Border Reiver said:


> Basically Twitter regards denial of gender identity (as she does) is morally equivalent to denying people who do change their gender identity to their lawful rights.
> 
> As I said above, when you are trying to separate views on the question is "If an intact male with a GRC as a woman have full right of access to most female spaces". YES is acceptable. NO is hateful.


I reject it is hateful.


----------



## Border Reiver (Mar 31, 2021)

Edie said:


> I can and will advocate it any way I choose Mr Reiver.


If you advocate for your view on Twitter and if they class it as hateful, you may lose the right to advocate your view there. That is the essence of this thread. Their platform, their rules.


----------



## Border Reiver (Mar 31, 2021)

Edie said:


> I reject it is hateful.


You do not own the platform. They do. They have rules. They win.


----------



## Athos (Mar 31, 2021)

Border Reiver said:


> I suspect that concludes our conversation. I have no more to add that will convince you. You are entitled to your opinion as I am to mine.



I'm open to being convinced, it's just that, to date, you've not made a compelling argument. But, if you have nothing else, then I agree that there's probably little else to say (given your inability to empathise with those who disagree).


----------



## Edie (Mar 31, 2021)

Border Reiver said:


> If you advocate for your view on Twitter and if they class it as hateful, you may lose the right to advocate your view there. That is the essence of this thread. Their platform, their rules.


I’m not on Twitter so I don’t really know or care about that. And I don’t really care how often men like you try and close down the debate using that tactic elsewhere either. Because women can and will continue to discuss it. Often behind your backs


----------



## Border Reiver (Mar 31, 2021)

Edie said:


> I reject it is hateful.


Do you accept that an intact male with a GRC has legal rights to enter most women only spaces and denial of opposition to her rights could be a civil or criminall matter?


----------



## Border Reiver (Mar 31, 2021)

Athos said:


> I'm open to being convinced, it's just that, to date, you've not made a compelling argument. But, if you have nothing else, then I agree that there's probably little else to say (given your inability to empathise with those who disagree).


I'm done.


----------



## Edie (Mar 31, 2021)

As I said earlier, what I do find interesting is the degree this divisive and authoritarian liberal/left wing agenda has been allowed to dominate society and social media. But other people aren’t keen to discuss that or how/why it has occurred.

Anyway, this has been a splendid example of it from Mr Border Reiver so maybe that’s enough for now.


----------



## Border Reiver (Mar 31, 2021)

Edie said:


> I’m not on Twitter so I don’t really know or care about that. And I don’t really care how often men like you try and close down the debate using that tactic elsewhere either. Because women can and will continue to discuss it. Often behind your backs


They may discuss as they wish. This thread is about why Twitter bans some matters as unlawful hate speech. It is not about my view or yours.


----------



## kabbes (Mar 31, 2021)

Edie said:


> I’m not on Twitter so I don’t really know or care about that. And I don’t really care how often men like you try and close down the debate using that tactic elsewhere either. Because women can and will continue to discuss it. Often behind your backs


And then those who shouted down the women are surprised when their backlash arrives.


----------



## Border Reiver (Mar 31, 2021)

Edie said:


> As I said earlier, what I do find interesting is the degree this divisive and authoritarian liberal/left wing agenda has been allowed to dominate society and social media. But other people aren’t keen to discuss that.
> 
> Anyway, this has been a splendid example of it from Mr Border Reiver so maybe that’s enough for now.


Perhaps you could answer the question about current rights of transgender persons.


----------



## Orang Utan (Mar 31, 2021)

Border Reiver said:


> They may discuss as they wish. This thread is about why Twitter bans some matters as unlawful hate speech. It is not about my view or yours.


It is though. It’s asking if we think the banned poster is a transphobe


----------



## Santino (Mar 31, 2021)

Border Reiver said:


> Perhaps you could answer the question about current rights of transgender persons.


You're done though.


----------



## two sheds (Mar 31, 2021)

Border Reiver said:


> Perhaps you could answer the question about current rights of transgender persons.



Bit of Sealioning going on here after the four? promises that you've "done"?


----------



## Santino (Mar 31, 2021)

two sheds said:


> Bit of Sealioning going on here after the four? promises that you've "done"?


They clearly don't know what sealioning is, anyway.


----------



## Border Reiver (Mar 31, 2021)

Santino said:


> You're done though.


I was referring to Athos. Try making a constructive comment for a change.


----------



## two sheds (Mar 31, 2021)

Border Reiver said:


> I was referring to Athos. Try man by a constructive comment food a change.


I'm done


----------



## Santino (Mar 31, 2021)

Border Reiver said:


> I was referring to Athos. Try man by a constructive comment food a change.


I will NOT try man a constructive comment food a change. How dare you?


----------



## Santino (Mar 31, 2021)

As if I would EVER try man a constructive comment, whether food a change or not. The very idea.


----------



## Border Reiver (Mar 31, 2021)

Santino said:


> They clearly don't know what sealioning is, anyway.


See my link to Wikipedia above

pursuing people with persistent requests for evidence or repeated questions, while maintaining a pretense of civility and sincerity.[1][2][3][4] It may take the form of "incessant, bad-faith invitations


----------



## Santino (Mar 31, 2021)

Border Reiver said:


> See my link to Wikipedia above
> 
> pursuing people with persistent requests for evidence or repeated questions, while maintaining a pretense of civility and sincerity.[1][2][3][4] It may take the form of "incessant, bad-faith invitations


I repeatedly asked you to demonstrate where this took place and you were unable to.


----------



## Border Reiver (Mar 31, 2021)

Santino said:


> I will NOT try man a constructive comment food a change. How dare you?


Onto ignore for repeated abusive contentless posts.


----------



## Santino (Mar 31, 2021)

Border Reiver said:


> Onto ignore for repeated abusive contentless posts.


I think you're getting it confused with gaslighting.


----------



## Border Reiver (Mar 31, 2021)

two sheds said:


> I'm done


Onto ignore with the next pointless comment.


----------



## Border Reiver (Mar 31, 2021)

Orang Utan said:


> It is though. It’s asking if we think the banned poster is a transphobe


Define "transphobe". There is no clear definition.


----------



## kabbes (Mar 31, 2021)

Border is going to be left only with people who are not civil but also not not civil, who do not ask questions or make objections or arguments and who only answer the specific questions he asks. 

And then he will be done.


----------



## bimble (Mar 31, 2021)

((Everyone whose getting ignored by this poster)) . Hope you all recover ok from the devastating news.


----------



## Santino (Mar 31, 2021)

If I'm on Ignore then it's surely time to report them for being a returning banned poster.


----------



## Athos (Mar 31, 2021)

Likes sealions and has little regard for women's thoughts and feelings? Border Reiver is Terry Nutkins!


----------



## Border Reiver (Mar 31, 2021)

Orang Utan said:


> It is though. It’s asking if we think the banned poster is a transphobe


The Twitter ban does not mention transphobia. 

I try not to use the terms TERF or transphobia because they are toxic.


----------



## Border Reiver (Mar 31, 2021)

Athos said:


> Likes sealions and has little regard for women's thoughts and feelings? Border Reiver is Terry Nutkins!


Onto ignore.

Border Reiver's law of internet forums says that any new poster will soon be identified as a troll, shill , sock, or new ID for an old member.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Mar 31, 2021)

Edie said:


> As I said earlier, what I do find interesting is the degree this divisive and authoritarian liberal/left wing agenda has been allowed to dominate society and social media. But other people aren’t keen to discuss that or how/why it has occurred.
> 
> Anyway, this has been a splendid example of it from Mr Border Reiver so maybe that’s enough for now.


To an extent, I think it's the result of a pretty natural reaction of sympathy for a group of clearly marginalised people. But within that marginalised group there exist objectionable and obnoxious people and opinions, and there is also very clearly an attempt from some to police definitions and impose a particular way of thinking on everyone. That way of thinking doesn't leave room for certain gender-critical positions that are themselves perfectly internally consistent. I can fully see why people want to support trans rights (I do too!), but I don't see how a conception of those rights that includes dictating a particular view of gender cannot be divisive. 

You have groups like Mermaids pushing their 'gender spectrum' ideas with princesses at one end and soldiers at the other. I find that limiting idea really objectionable and regressive, as do many other people, understandably I would have thought, when they've spent decades trying to move away from the idea that 'this is a girl thing and that is a boy thing'. Instead of promoting the idea that girls and boys should not feel limited by their sex or gendered expectations, those very limits are essentialised. (And I would add here that gendered expectations are not just a trans issue. Very far from it.) 

It's a mess. The more you learn about it, the more of a mess it appears.


----------



## kabbes (Mar 31, 2021)

This is brilliant.  He comes into a discussion forum and promptly ignores all the regulars that discuss things.  

What are you hoping for, Border?  Oh wait, you can’t read this.  I guess that sadly I will never know.


----------



## Athos (Mar 31, 2021)

Border Reiver said:


> Onto ignore.





bimble said:


> ((Everyone whose getting ignored by this poster)) . Hope you all recover ok from the devastating news.



I'll live. It's no worse than the time they be stealin' my bucket.


----------



## kabbes (Mar 31, 2021)

Are sea lions the new toning mist?


----------



## Athos (Mar 31, 2021)

kabbes said:


> Are sea lions the new toning mist?



I can't tell you, because you're on ignore.


----------



## Kevbad the Bad (Mar 31, 2021)

i'm feeling left out. No-ones ignoring me! (Officially, anyway)


----------



## ElizabethofYork (Mar 31, 2021)

Kevbad the Bad said:


> i'm feeling left out. No-ones ignoring me! (Officially, anyway)


Who said that?


----------



## Kevbad the Bad (Mar 31, 2021)

ElizabethofYork said:


> Who said that?


I feel better now.


----------



## Santino (Mar 31, 2021)

Very quiet in here.


----------



## Santino (Mar 31, 2021)

kabbes said:


> Are sea lions the new toning mist?


A sea lion isn't the same as a sealion. 

This is a sea lion:


----------



## Santino (Mar 31, 2021)

I'm imagining an 18th century naval officer who commands the HMS Sea Lion, and his colleagues keep introducing him as "commander of the HMS Sealion" and he shouts "NO! It's the HMS Sea.... Lion, they're different!"


----------



## Santino (Mar 31, 2021)

I apologise for the sea lion diversion.


----------



## Santino (Mar 31, 2021)

WTF?


----------



## Orang Utan (Mar 31, 2021)




----------



## A380 (Mar 31, 2021)

A380 said:


> View attachment 261022





Border Reiver said:


> I'm done.


----------



## Sue (Mar 31, 2021)

kabbes said:


> Are sea lions the new toning mist?


We can have both, surely...?  

I WANT BOTH.


----------



## kabbes (Mar 31, 2021)

Santino said:


> A sea lion isn't the same as a sealion.
> 
> This is a sea lion:


Tell that to my autocorrect


----------



## kabbes (Mar 31, 2021)

Sue said:


> We can have both, surely...?
> 
> I WANT BOTH.


Combined?  A sealion (which is a word my phone still refuses to recognise the existence of) with a good spritz?


----------



## MickiQ (Mar 31, 2021)

Edie said:


> I’m not on Twitter so I don’t really know or care about that. And I don’t really care how often men like you try and close down the debate using that tactic elsewhere either. Because women can and will continue to discuss it. Often behind your backs


I went on it purely to follow Donald Trump (plus some of his detractors), I've lost interest now they've kicked him off it.


----------



## teuchter (Mar 31, 2021)

These discussions always seem to end up with arguments about single-sex spaces and how they should, shouldn't, could or couldn't be policed.

But as far as I can see (this basically means, speaking to female friends), most women who might be labelled "gender critical" aren't really that bothered about that argument. What they are mainly angry about is

1) Being told they have to accept that the definition of "woman" has now changed, so it is no longer tied to their lived experience of their physical biology and the unchangeable consequences of that
2) Stuff that is difficult for me to condense into one sentence but it's to do with an apparent acceptance of gender stereotypes that they've fought against for their whole lives

They are pretty angry about this stuff and I completely understand why. They also seem to feel they can only really discuss it in private because otherwise they are liable to end up labelled as transphobes. And they are not transphobes.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Mar 31, 2021)

If nothing else, the terms transphobe and bigot could do with being put to one side in much of this debate. 

If Keira Bell is a transphobic bigot then really the term has no meaning, it's just being chucked around to describe people who don't agree with a particular formulation of the argument.


----------



## smokedout (Mar 31, 2021)

littlebabyjesus said:


> If nothing else, the terms transphobe and bigot could do with being put to one side in much of this debate.
> 
> If Keira Bell is a transphobic bigot then really the term has no meaning, it's just being chucked around to describe people who don't agree with a particular formulation of the argument.



Is Posie Parker transphobic?


----------



## smokedout (Mar 31, 2021)

teuchter said:


> These discussions always seem to end up with arguments about single-sex spaces and how they should, shouldn't, could or couldn't be policed.
> 
> But as far as I can see (this basically means, speaking to female friends), most women who might be labelled "gender critical" aren't really that bothered about that argument. What they are mainly angry about is
> 
> ...



I think a big part of this problem is that trans people have actually largely been excluded from this public debate.  There are few to none trans columnists discussing this in the national press compared to nearly daily anti-trans stories.  There are no trans people with platform's the size of JK Rowling.  There are very few trans people in the public eye at all and trans people are frequently spoken about but rarely spoken to - see this thread and the Newsnight coverage of the Tavistock for examples.

In addition very few people have read any trans feminist theory, are familiar with trans history, or indeed have read much radical feminist theory.  And so both sides of this debate are framed through the gender critical lens, or sometimes a more conservative lens.  People's information on what trans people 'want' or 'believe' comes from gender critical sources or the right wing press - not trans people themselves.  And because very few people acually have a close relationship with a trans person then it becomes very easy to project whatever you want onto them.

With some exceptions obviously, trans people are not a monolith, trans people are far more opposed to gender stereotypes than mainstream society.  There are many radical trans gender abolitionists, there are femme trans men, and butch trans women and all kinds of other manifestations. As gender critical activists point out, there are now dozens of gender identities, soon there might be thousands, can each of these truly represent a stereotype?  The vast majority of trans people have said many times being trans is nothing to do with stereotypes, that's not what gender dysphoria is about, or feels like, or what anyone wants.  Quite the opposite in fact.  This is an assumption that is placed onto trans people by people who aren't trans, often without malign intent but increasingly as a weapon.  So now we have whole trans ideology, that is feverishly discussed in the national media, that has actually been largely invented by gender critical activists based on assumptions, speculation and a constant global search for a tweet here and a blogpost there that are used to prove these intentions - in the rare occassion anyone asks for proof.  Yet I have never met or read a trans person who thinks that gender non-conforming kids should be transed, or that gender stereotypes are a good thing.  And if abolishing these stereotypes was such a priority for the gender critical movement then where is the outrage at the beauty industy, cosmetic surgeons, the church, Hollywood and all the other institutions that do far more to enforce gender steroetypes then trans people ever possibly could even if they wanted to.  Which we don't.


----------



## hitmouse (Mar 31, 2021)

The RABL piece is really good on this, I think:


> It’s easy to see why some explanations of trans people’s choices persist. The dominant narrative in society currently is that genders are a naturally occurring result of innate biological differences. It is assumed these probably came about through evolution, as sexist scientists retrospectively impose our current gender stereotypes on the past, in a Flintstones-style view of history, and conclude that male and female brains developed out of the “natural” roles that our reproductive organs are assumed to have landed us with. In fact gender is a far more recent human invention, but the oppression of women seemingly has to be justified somehow, whether by reference to God, science, or something else. This pop neuroscience can be used to give trans people legitimacy. If men and women really have man-brains and woman-brains, then it’s plausible we could have landed the wrong brain to go with our genitals somehow (or the wrong genitals to go with our brains, depending on your perspective). It seems easier to get a society already invested in gender essentialism to accept that we’ve just been put in the wrong box, than to get people to question everything they thought they knew about men and women. Arguing that the entire system is bullshit and needs to be torn down is a massive task and not going to get us any joy any time soon. It’s easy to see why some trans people prefer a narrative less threatening to the status quo, but this is not inherently part of being trans.
> 
> Still many ordinary trans people will talk about their transition in terms that recognise that gender is a role, not an innate quality, for example by talking about the time when they used to be a man or a woman. Exploring gender in the way that we do as trans people can often make its socially constructed nature more apparent to us, at the same time as living life as a trans person demonstrates the practical need to provide cis people with explanations for our choices which will get them off our backs.
> 
> ...


----------



## bimble (Mar 31, 2021)

hitmouse said:


> The RABL piece is really good on this, I think:


That is interesting. 
I'd like to hear more about this bit, where they say "_Similarly arguing that trans people are born trans appears to be a more manageable path to acceptance, at the cost of supporting gender essentialist ideas..."_
So the author's clearly not of the opinion that there are mixups where people get born with a brain that belongs with the other sex, and they dont think people are born trans.
But from that short piece I'm without a clue what they are pointing towards as the alternative, to this, what might be the way to explaining transness which does not 'support gender essentialist ideas' . 
So far (i havent looked for quite a while admittedly) I've not yet come across a trans person who has found a way to explain their realisation without recourse to gender stereotypes or roles (toys and so on).


----------



## Knotted (Mar 31, 2021)

Does there have to be an explanation for transgenderism?


----------



## teuchter (Mar 31, 2021)

smokedout said:


> And if abolishing these stereotypes was such a priority for the gender critical movement then where is the outrage at the beauty industy, cosmetic surgeons, the church, Hollywood and all the other institutions that do far more to enforce gender steroetypes then trans people ever possibly could even if they wanted to.


I still can only really speak of what a limited sample of women I know tell me. But I am very sure that they have been fighting against all those things their whole lives. And I don't think they see themselves as a "gender critical movement". That's a term applied to them by outsiders. We seem to have ended up with a situation where, if you don't agree with the definition of previously widely accepted terms being altered, you are part of a "movement". 

And I don't think you would ever find them saying something like "trans people are enforcing gender stereotypes".

An illustrative scenario is one where a friend's child is into stuff that is traditionally associated with the other biological sex. In the olden days, that child would be encouraged not to do that. The girl would be discouraged from playing with guns or the boy would be discouraged from playing with make-up. Of course this kind of attitude is sadly still not confined to the past. But the feminist (and, just generally living in the 21st century) approach would be to let the child do as they will, and not have their options determined by their sex any more than they necessarily are by biological reality. However - the worry might be that we are moving to a situation where the child's preferences are taken to indicate that there should be serious consideration of them transitioning.

Now, I'm sure you will tell me that this is one of those "this doesn't actually happen very often at all" scenarios and I accept that to an extent, in particular to the extent that probably in the vast majority of cases the child is not encouraged to transition, along with the possibility that there might be some cases where choosing to transition is in fact in the best interests of the child. But this is a scenario that I've watched come up for real, in two separate cases. And what is definitely a problem is that it seems to have become incredibly difficult to just have a conversation about, without a lot of anxiety about being labelled a transphobe or similar. The whole thing is an awful mess; I don't know whose fault that is, but it's an awful mess and it seems like maybe people on both sides need to step back and make a more genuine effort to understand the contrary view rather than projecting views that aren't actually held.


----------



## hitmouse (Mar 31, 2021)

I have to admit that I've never actually read it all the way through cos it's not the easiest of reads, but I sort of think of Gender Nihilism as being a fairly important text on this stuff? Also, very very long and semi-paywalled so you may need to open in incognito mode, but Who Do You Think You Are? by Jacqueline Rose is a really excellent piece of writing imo.
Also a bit dated now, terminology's changed a fair bit in the past decade, but I really like this Hackney Pride speech:


> Every boy and  girl, to some extent, has to grapple with the difference between who  they are, and what a Real Man is.  What a Real Woman is.   Every body  suffers from the invention of the Man and the Woman.  And I consider  myself an extreme casualty of this- I don’t really consider myself a  Man- but I know, violently, that I’m not a woman.


----------



## 19force8 (Mar 31, 2021)

Back in January, Contrapoints had some interesting takes on these questions (bigotry and understanding trans issues). Worth a look if you have an hour to spare. Quirky presentation, but worth persevering with:


----------



## 8ball (Mar 31, 2021)

Knotted said:


> Does there have to be an explanation for transgenderism?



When it comes to gay people, no one really seems to care any more, and that seems to have come along with increased tolerance.

One thing that is different with trans issues is that there may be requirements for interventions that come with significant risks.  The medical model is limited here, but when talking about “treatments”, questions of aetiology become pertinent.  There is a responsibility to minimise harms.


----------



## editor (Mar 31, 2021)




----------



## bimble (Mar 31, 2021)

Knotted said:


> Does there have to be an explanation for transgenderism?


I'm going to have to think on this a bit. Maybe if I didn't want - or feel entitled somehow - to _Understand_ it then everything would be easier to just accept. At the same time, when everyone is required to redefine basic words, and when there's a big medical aspect, and surgeries and all that, it doesn't seem all that odd to want to understand what being trans actually is. But I can live with the not understanding.


----------



## Knotted (Mar 31, 2021)

19force8 said:


> Back in January, Contrapoints had some interesting takes on these questions (bigotry and understanding trans issues). Worth a look if you have an hour to spare. Quirky presentation, but worth persevering with:




I actually think this Contrapoints video might be more useful to the immediate debate. It's about non-binary trans but the second half does go into an open dialogue about what it means to be trans and concludes that it's really difficult to put a nail on it. "Man born in a woman's body" (or vice versa) is just the easiest way to explain it, rather than some deep truth. Or at least that's my cis take on it.

And this is what I don't like about the gender critical movement. They're talking about a group of people who didn't choose to be the way they are, doing the best they can and accusing them of various sins such as enforcing gender stereotypes. It's literally prejudice - pre-judging.


----------



## Knotted (Mar 31, 2021)

8ball said:


> When it comes to gay people, no one really seems to care any more, and that seems to have come along with increased tolerance.
> 
> One thing that is different with trans issues is that there may be requirements for interventions that come with significant risks.  The medical model is limited here, but when talking about “treatments”, questions of aetiology become pertinent.  There is a responsibility to minimise harms.



Yes OK.


----------



## Knotted (Mar 31, 2021)

bimble said:


> I'm going to have to think on this a bit. Maybe if I didn't want - or feel entitled somehow - to _Understand_ it then everything would be easier to just accept. At the same time, when everyone is required to redefine basic words, and when there's a big medical aspect, and surgeries and all that, it doesn't seem all that odd to want to understand what being trans actually is. But I can live with the not understanding.



I think it's great to want to understand, just you might not get a simple, satisfying answer. Also there's difference and even vicious infighting about what it means to be trans. Try that video I suggested above.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Mar 31, 2021)

Knotted said:


> I actually think this Contrapoints video might be more useful to the immediate debate. It's about non-binary trans but the second half does go into an open dialogue about what it means to be trans and concludes that it's really difficult to put a nail on it. "Man born in a woman's body" (or vice versa) is just the easiest way to explain it, rather than some deep truth. Or at least that's my cis take on it.
> 
> And this is what I don't like about the gender critical movement. They're talking about a group of people who didn't choose to be the way they are, doing the best they can and accusing them of various sins such as enforcing gender stereotypes. It's literally prejudice - pre-judging.


I agree that it is completely unfair to lay that accusation at the door of trans people. I think it's less unfair to lay it at the door of organisations that promote particular conceptions of gender, such as Mermaids. I think they _do_ reenforce gender stereotypes.


----------



## bimble (Mar 31, 2021)

I reckon if we laid down our weapons for just a moment, everybody would be able to understand that it's not without difficulty when you find people saying stuff along the lines of I know i am a woman because i loved dolls, and lipstick, and am terrible at maths, etc.
It's that sort of thing that i think has unintentionally caused a lot of ire. I know this is not all trans women, i do know.

Knotted movie-length video is too long, I can't sit still that long even for a psychological thriller.


----------



## Border Reiver (Mar 31, 2021)

Knotted said:


> Does there have to be an explanation for transgenderism?


No. But the OP talked about transphobia and linked it to a Twitter ban.

No one has tried to define transphobe yet. I do not use that term seeing it as toxic.


----------



## belboid (Mar 31, 2021)

littlebabyjesus said:


> I agree that it is completely unfair to lay that accusation at the door of trans people. I think it's less unfair to lay it at the door of organisations that promote particular conceptions of gender, such as Mermaids. I think they _do_ reenforce gender stereotypes.


and the  Vancouver Rape Relief and Women's Shelter I assume then - considering it refused women with DM's, skinheads and those who looked 'too male.'


----------



## SpackleFrog (Mar 31, 2021)

teuchter said:


> An illustrative scenario is one where a friend's child is into stuff that is traditionally associated with the other biological sex. In the olden days, that child would be encouraged not to do that. The girl would be discouraged from playing with guns or the boy would be discouraged from playing with make-up. Of course this kind of attitude is sadly still not confined to the past. But the feminist (and, just generally living in the 21st century) approach would be to let the child do as they will, and not have their options determined by their sex any more than they necessarily are by biological reality. However - the worry might be that we are moving to a situation where the child's preferences are taken to indicate that there should be serious consideration of them transitioning.
> 
> Now, I'm sure you will tell me that this is one of those "this doesn't actually happen very often at all" scenarios and I accept that to an extent, in particular to the extent that probably in the vast majority of cases the child is not encouraged to transition, along with the possibility that there might be some cases where choosing to transition is in fact in the best interests of the child. But this is a scenario that I've watched come up for real, in two separate cases.



Is that what you're worried about then? That if a boy plays with a doll people will tell them they are trans and they need to transition?


----------



## Border Reiver (Mar 31, 2021)

editor said:


>



Seals And Sealions are different animals..


----------



## editor (Mar 31, 2021)

Border Reiver said:


> Seals And Sealions are different animals..


But with a balancing  ball in common.


----------



## Border Reiver (Mar 31, 2021)

belboid said:


> and the  Vancouver Rape Relief and Women's Shelter I assume then - considering it refused women with DM's, skinheads and those who looked 'too male.'


When I was in Nurse training in the seventies a visit was arranged to visit a shelter. They refused to accommodate male nurses in their invitation. The set  chose to refuse the visit.


----------



## Knotted (Mar 31, 2021)

bimble said:


> Knotted movie-length video is too long, I can't sit still that long even for a psychological thriller.



The video I suggested is 34 minutes and you only need to watch the last 20 minutes. But fair enough if videos don't suit you.


----------



## Athos (Mar 31, 2021)

belboid said:


> and the  Vancouver Rape Relief and Women's Shelter I assume then - considering it refused women with DM's, skinheads and those who looked 'too male.'



Did that happen?  I'm not denying it, btw, just don't think I've heard that particular allegation before.  Do you have a source, please?


----------



## Border Reiver (Mar 31, 2021)

editor said:


> But with a balancing  ball in common.



Seals tend to balance balls, sealioning is about talking balls.😃


----------



## Athos (Mar 31, 2021)

Border Reiver said:


> When I was in Nurse training in the seventies a visit was arranged to visit a shelter. They refused to accommodate male nurses in their invitation. The set  chose to refuse the visit.


You sure showed them, eh?  Well done.


----------



## SpackleFrog (Mar 31, 2021)

bimble said:


> I'm going to have to think on this a bit. Maybe if I didn't want - or feel entitled somehow - to _Understand_ it then everything would be easier to just accept. At the same time, when everyone is required to redefine basic words, and when there's a big medical aspect, and surgeries and all that, it doesn't seem all that odd to want to understand what being trans actually is. But I can live with the not understanding.



I might regret this but I hope I don't...

One thing that made it a lot easier for me to understand was discovering that not all, in fact not even most trans people want to have gender reassignment surgery - that it isn't about trying to change their physical sex for most people. Before, I'd always had concerns about people undergoing medical treatment and surgery too rashly and I therefore worried about the process of people transitioning. Once I learnt that for many/most trans people it doesn't involve life altering surgery, and that it was more about the role and behaviour they wanted to be allowed to embrace in their lives, it made it a lot simpler. And it also made it make sense why doctors shouldn't necessarily be involved in trans peoples decisions and that being trans shouldn't automatically be seen as a medical issue.

I know posters have said that things are different now and gender roles are not so strictly policed. I think this is wishful thinking. For the mass of society gender roles are still very strictly policed indeed - and even more so in some cultures than others.

Maybe it is harder for those who have fought against gender stereotypes for decades to understand/accept. That could make sense. Of course, it would also make sense that the boomer rad fems of the 1970's and '80's can't get their head around trans rights because they've always been reactionary biological essentialists...


----------



## A380 (Mar 31, 2021)

editor said:


>



Glad to see your pinniped perspicacity is better than whoever captioned that video.


----------



## smokedout (Mar 31, 2021)

littlebabyjesus


littlebabyjesus said:


> I agree that it is completely unfair to lay that accusation at the door of trans people. I think it's less unfair to lay it at the door of organisations that promote particular conceptions of gender, such as Mermaids. I think they _do_ reenforce gender stereotypes.



Can you point to where on their website Mermaids reinforce gender stereotypes?  Like most charities Mermaids are hardly radicals, and they are not trans led, but I suspect your opinion of them has been guided by gender critical sources rather than an analysis of what Mermaids actually promote.

Are you going to answer this btw



> Is Posie Parker transphobic?


----------



## bimble (Mar 31, 2021)

SpackleFrog said:


> the boomer rad fems of the 1970's and '80's can't get their head around trans rights because they've always been reactionary biological essentialists...


i dont think you know very much about the history of feminism.


----------



## SpackleFrog (Mar 31, 2021)

bimble said:


> i dont think you know very much about the history of feminism.



And this is why I shouldn't have engaged with you.


----------



## bimble (Mar 31, 2021)

SpackleFrog said:


> And this is why I shouldn't have engaged with you.


Oh no.


----------



## hitmouse (Mar 31, 2021)

Oh snap, I was literally just about to say...


SpackleFrog said:


> Maybe it is harder for those who have fought against gender stereotypes for decades to understand/accept. That could make sense. Of course, it would also make sense that the boomer rad fems of the 1970's and '80's can't get their head around trans rights because they've always been reactionary biological essentialists...


As much as I disagree with second-wave radical feminism, it's not the framework I use to explain the world and so on, but I do think a lot of the original radfems were better than the crap that lays claim to their legacy today. Consider Dworkin, for example: Andrea Dworkin Was a Trans Ally


----------



## Santino (Mar 31, 2021)

SpackleFrog said:


> Of course, it would also make sense that the boomer rad fems of the 1970's and '80's can't get their head around trans rights because they've always been reactionary biological essentialists...


This is the opposite of true.


----------



## SpackleFrog (Mar 31, 2021)

hitmouse said:


> Oh snap, I was literally just about to say...
> 
> As much as I disagree with second-wave radical feminism, it's not the framework I use to explain the world and so on, but I do think a lot of the original radfems were better than the crap that lays claim to their legacy today. Consider Dworkin, for example: Andrea Dworkin Was a Trans Ally



Yeah thats a fair point, but still you can see the roots of it - sex class oppression, every fuck is a rape etc. Once you've decided sex is the primary basis of oppression then its not far to go to deny trans women are women.


----------



## SpackleFrog (Mar 31, 2021)

Santino said:


> This is the opposite of true.



It might be a crass generalisation, but its not the opposite of true. That was a strong trend within that historical period.


----------



## Santino (Mar 31, 2021)

SpackleFrog said:


> It might be a crass generalisation, but its not the opposite of true. That was a strong trend within that historical period.


Whether or not it was a 'strong trend', it's false to say that 2nd wave feminism is about biological essentialism. Do you accept that?


----------



## teuchter (Mar 31, 2021)

SpackleFrog said:


> Is that what you're worried about then? That if a boy plays with a doll people will tell them they are trans and they need to transition?



Trying to ignore the attempt to trivialise the concern by reducing the thing to "boy plays with dolls"...

I would be very worried about a boy who plays with a doll being told that if he wants to play with dolls, well that's fine, but the thing is that society expects girls to play with dolls, and therefore maybe he should consider living his life not as a boy who likes to play with dolls, but as a girl. Because that's kind of what this implies:



SpackleFrog said:


> I know posters have said that things are different now and gender roles are not so strictly policed. I think this is wishful thinking. For the mass of society gender roles are still very strictly policed indeed - and even more so in some cultures than others.
> 
> Maybe it is harder for those who have fought against gender stereotypes for decades to understand/accept. That could make sense. Of course, it would also make sense that the boomer rad fems of the 1970's and '80's can't get their head around trans rights because they've always been reactionary biological essentialists...


----------



## bimble (Mar 31, 2021)

SpackleFrog said:


> sex class oppression


Does this not exist in your understanding of the world?
I know you’re not engaging with me anymore but honestly have no idea how you can live on the same planet as me and think that this isn’t a thing, that people are wrong to imagine it is.


----------



## Santino (Mar 31, 2021)

SpackleFrog said:


> Yeah thats a fair point, but still you can see the roots of it - sex class oppression, every fuck is a rape etc. Once you've decided sex is the primary basis of oppression then its not far to go to deny trans women are women.


Sex IS the primary basis of the oppression of women.


----------



## SpackleFrog (Mar 31, 2021)

Santino said:


> Whether or not it was a 'strong trend', it's false to say that 2nd wave feminism is about biological essentialism. Do you accept that?



I didn't say 2nd wave feminism was about biological essentialism. It isn't! But radical feminism as in the strand of feminism that sees male oppression of women as natural and inherent is in my opinion biological essentialism.


----------



## SpackleFrog (Mar 31, 2021)

teuchter said:


> Trying to ignore the attempt to trivialise the concern by reducing the thing to "boy plays with dolls"...
> 
> I would be very worried about a boy who plays with a doll being told that if he wants to play with dolls, well that's fine, but the thing is that society expects girls to play with dolls, and therefore maybe he should consider living his life not as a boy who likes to play with dolls, but as a girl. Because that's kind of what this implies:



It doesn't imply that at all. Why don't you answer the question? Are you worried that children who play with toys not associated with their sex/gender will be told they are trans and encouraged to transition?


----------



## SpackleFrog (Mar 31, 2021)

Santino said:


> Sex IS the primary basis of the oppression of women.



In your opinion. I'm a socialist and a Marxist and I believe that private property and patriarchal society are the basis of the oppression of women.


----------



## SpackleFrog (Mar 31, 2021)

bimble said:


> Does this not exist in your understanding of the world?
> I know you’re not engaging with me anymore but honestly have no idea how you can live on the same planet as me and think that this isn’t a thing, that people are wrong to imagine it is.



No. Its the radical feminist explanation of oppression - its not mine, I'm a socialist. I don't believe there is anything inherent to sex that results in the oppression of women. There is plenty of anthropological evidence to show that prior to the development of private property many early human societies were matriarchal for example - or patriarchal, or where there were more than two genders for want of a better expression. Its not inherent that men oppress women, its just inherent in our society.


----------



## Santino (Mar 31, 2021)

SpackleFrog said:


> In your opinion. I'm a socialist and a Marxist and I believe that private property and patriarchal society are the basis of the oppression of women.


This is sophistry. Women are oppressed AS WOMEN on the basis of their membership of the reproductive sex class. And how did patriarchy come into being and identify women as a class?


----------



## Santino (Mar 31, 2021)

SpackleFrog said:


> I don't believe there is anything inherent to sex that results in the oppression of women.


I think this is the issue. These doesn't have to be anything inherent in sex for it to be true that women are oppressed on the basis of it - it's just the way that it is.


----------



## SpackleFrog (Mar 31, 2021)

Santino said:


> This is sophistry. Women are oppressed AS WOMEN on the basis of their membership of the reproductive sex class. And how did patriarchy come into being and identify women as a class?



I've just said I don't believe women are a class. What do you want from me?


----------



## SpackleFrog (Mar 31, 2021)

Santino said:


> I think this is the issue. These doesn't have to be anything inherent in sex for it to be true that women are oppressed on the basis of it - it's just the way that it is.



I can accept that, no bother.


----------



## Dystopiary (Mar 31, 2021)

It's all just very sad. I understand a lot of cis women's fears around this, but the idea of trans women having to go into a men's prison, or solitary confinement, well it's barbaric. I don't know if there's gonna be a situation in which everyone can feel comfortable and safe. But the negative stuff being bandied about online (twitter for example) about trans women is just awful, cruel really. There's so much stereotyping and disinfornation, and then cis men stirring the pot.  😟


----------



## Santino (Mar 31, 2021)

SpackleFrog said:


> I've just said I don't believe women are a class. What do you want from me?


What if women identify themselves as a class on the basis of their material conditions as distinct from men? What are you going to do about it?


----------



## co-op (Mar 31, 2021)

littlebabyjesus said:


> One of the problems here is that there is no easy equivalence between racism and transphobia.
> 
> (I also think it was unhelpful and wrong of the person on Twitter to attempt this equivalence.)



My impression was not that the VH in the OP was making a comparison between transphobia and racism, but arguing that no one on the left thinks someone being transracial could be a thing (Rachel Dolezal) so how is it different from transgender. I've never heard an answer to this that made much sense to me, the main argument seems to be "there are more transgender people, people claiming to be transracial are incredibly rare" which is (a) not really an argument and (b) applies to tg, intersex people etc etc anyway.


----------



## SpackleFrog (Mar 31, 2021)

Santino said:


> What if women identify themselves as a class on the basis of their material conditions as distinct from men? What are you going to do about it?



I mean, clearly some women do. Why would I do anything about that?


----------



## Santino (Mar 31, 2021)

SpackleFrog said:


> I mean, clearly some women do. Why would I do anything about that?


Have you told them that they're incorrect?


----------



## bimble (Mar 31, 2021)

SpackleFrog said:


> No. Its the radical feminist explanation of oppression - its not mine, I'm a socialist. I don't believe there is anything inherent to sex that results in the oppression of women. There is plenty of anthropological evidence to show that prior to the development of private property many early human societies were matriarchal for example - or patriarchal, or where there were more than two genders for want of a better expression. Its not inherent that men oppress women, its just inherent in our society.


You think radical feminists have been saying for decades ‘women are and always shall be oppressed cos of having wombs’ ?
this is.. incorrect.


----------



## Santino (Mar 31, 2021)

I'm curious, how did it happen that half of the population, those who are a member of the reproductive sex class, ended up being forbidden to own property, raped with impunity, and murdered? How did it come about?


----------



## Santino (Mar 31, 2021)

SpackleFrog , do you accept that in our society, women are oppressed on the basis of their sex?


----------



## Border Reiver (Mar 31, 2021)

co-op said:


> My impression was not that the VH in the OP was making a comparison between transphobia and racism, but arguing that no one on the left thinks someone being transracial could be a thing (Rachel Dolezal) so how is it different from transgender. I've never heard an answer to this that made much sense to me, the main argument seems to be "there are more transgender people, people claiming to be transracial are incredibly rare" which is (a) not really an argument and (b) applies to tg, intersex people etc etc anyway.


It really matters little what we think about "transphobia". Twitter have their view and it is unlikely to change.

I have still not see a definition of "transphobia".


----------



## teuchter (Mar 31, 2021)

SpackleFrog said:


> It doesn't imply that at all. Why don't you answer the question? Are you worried that children who play with toys not associated with their sex/gender will be told they are trans and encouraged to transition?


No, I am not.


----------



## SpackleFrog (Mar 31, 2021)

teuchter said:


> No, I am not.



Great. Im really glad you're not worried. I was worried for a minute there!


----------



## co-op (Mar 31, 2021)

SpackleFrog said:


> No. Its the radical feminist explanation of oppression - its not mine, I'm a socialist. I don't believe there is anything inherent to sex that results in the oppression of women. *There is plenty of anthropological evidence to show that prior to the development of private property many early human societies were matriarchal for example *- or patriarchal, or where there were more than two genders for want of a better expression. Its not inherent that men oppress women, its just inherent in our society.



Yes and it's a key part of much radical feminism to argue that as private property became critical to political power - always via inheritance of course - that it is _then_ that women need to be subordinated and controlled in order for the powerful and wealthy (who happened to be men) to control the transmission of that power and wealth across generations. And it is then that the seeds of gender roles that made that subordination seem "natural" also come into being (women are passive, emotional, irrational, indifferent to sex etc)

So radical socialism and feminism were for many rad fems absolutely inseparable.


----------



## Knotted (Mar 31, 2021)

co-op said:


> My impression was not that the VH in the OP was making a comparison between transphobia and racism, but arguing that no one on the left thinks someone being transracial could be a thing (Rachel Dolezal) so how is it different from transgender. I've never heard an answer to this that made much sense to me, the main argument seems to be "there are more transgender people, people claiming to be transracial are incredibly rare" which is (a) not really an argument and (b) applies to tg, intersex people etc etc anyway.



I feel that collectively we were all coming to an understanding that trans people don't necessarily have quick and easy answers to the nature of transgenderism. Just like you don't ask a gay person "why are you gay? Is it genetic, is it the way you were brought up? I've never seen anybody satisfactorily explain it. Justify yourself!". This little point here and more broadly the whole thread probably looks like a demand for trans posters to explain themselves. Smokedout is really good at it and maybe even comfortable with it, but it shouldn't be something they feel they have to do. Other trans posters may feel completely alienated by the whole discussion.


----------



## hitmouse (Mar 31, 2021)

SpackleFrog said:


> Yeah thats a fair point, but still you can see the roots of it - sex class oppression, every fuck is a rape etc. Once you've decided sex is the primary basis of oppression then its not far to go to deny trans women are women.


Oh yeah, like I say I'm not a 1970s radical feminist by any means. I just think it's worth bearing in mind that the original radfems did at least exist in conversation with (even if those conversations were often quite heated arguments!) socialist and Marxist feminisms that were in turn tied to the mass struggles of the day. Idk, I just find it a bit sad and misguided how you sometimes see people arguing as though the Posie Parkers and Graham Linehans of the world were like the natural outcome of second-wave feminism, rather than being the debris left behind by its defeat.


----------



## SpackleFrog (Mar 31, 2021)

Santino said:


> Have you told them that they're incorrect?



Aye, just now 



bimble said:


> You think radical feminists have been saying for decades ‘women are and always shall be oppressed cos of having wombs’ ?
> this is.. incorrect.



Weeeeellllllll, is it? 



Santino said:


> I'm curious, how did it happen that half of the population, those who are a member of the reproductive sex class, ended up being forbidden to own property, raped with impunity, and murdered? How did it come about?



So tell me if you see it differently Bimble, but I think Santino is saying that women being denied property and violence against women are because of their biological reproductive systems. 



Santino said:


> SpackleFrog , do you accept that in our society, women are oppressed on the basis of their sex?



I think the origins of women's oppression are connected to sex and reproductive labour. But I don't think that's the only factor in the basis of womens oppression. I don't believe that womens oppression has existed as long as humans have existed. I think the oppression of women came later on, with the advent of private property and the development of the family unit.

I feel like you must have come across this idea before? But if not its not as if its something I've come up with - you could try giving this a read.





__





						Origins of the Family
					





					www.marxists.org


----------



## SpackleFrog (Mar 31, 2021)

hitmouse said:


> Oh yeah, like I say I'm not a 1970s radical feminist by any means. I just think it's worth bearing in mind that the original radfems did at least exist in conversation with (even if those conversations were often quite heated arguments!) socialist and Marxist feminisms that were in turn tied to the mass struggles of the day. Idk, I just find it a bit sad and misguided how you sometimes see people arguing as though the Posie Parkers and Graham Linehans of the world were like the natural outcome of second-wave feminism, rather than being the debris left behind by its defeat.



Yeah, I take your point and as with all movements there was obviously crossover between socialist/Marxist feminisms and radical feminisms. Was being a bit glib which I probably shouldn't have been on this thread!


----------



## bimble (Mar 31, 2021)

SpackleFrog said:


> So tell me if you see it differently Bimble, but I think Santino is saying that women being denied property and violence against women are *because of their biological reproductive systems.*


Thats not what they're saying, no. Not 'because they has wombs'. Honestly cant be arsed right now, i did sit through a whole degree in anthropology in a pretty full on rad fem department, back in the last century, and that was bad enough. Not trying to claim superior knowledge due to that just your takes on this are so clumsy and your boots so big that it sort of feels disheartening. Reproductive class is not same as ‘has womb’.


----------



## ska invita (Mar 31, 2021)

Santino said:


> This is sophistry. Women are oppressed AS WOMEN on the basis of their membership of the reproductive sex class. And how did patriarchy come into being and identify women as a class?


arguably through a change in property relations


----------



## smokedout (Mar 31, 2021)

Santino said:


> What if women identify themselves as a class on the basis of their material conditions as distinct from men? What are you going to do about it?



The goal of most 1970s radical feminists was to destroy the sex class of women not endlessly police the borders.  There was a universal recognition that whilst women may have been oppressed due to their physical bodies this was not inevitable and certainly not a natural state.  Many believed that womanhood could only be understood in relation to male dominance, that patriarchy invented and policed what a woman was.  This famously led Wittig to declare that as a lesbian she was not a woman and her arguing to demolish the sex classification system - a goal shared by Dworkin and Firestone.  It is no surprise that most of the surviving women involved in that movement support trans inclusions, it is perfectly inline with the writings and imaginings of most 1970s radical feminists.

As many of it's adherents will angrily point out the gender critical movement is not a feminist movement but a movement which includes feminists.  It is a world away in both ideology and goals from radical second wave feminism.  It is essentially a  conservative doctrine that instead of calling for radical and revolutionary change accepts male violence as a biological inevitability from which women need protection in the form of single sex spaces and that the role of feminism should be to protect those spaces.  They are not fighting a class war in the way Firestone understood it with the aim of destroying the sex class system.  They are conceding defeat, and accepting society as it is, or as it was before trans people came along and ruined everything.


----------



## smokedout (Mar 31, 2021)

smokedout said:


> The goal of most 1970s radical feminists was to destroy the sex class of women not endlessly police the borders.  There was a universal recognition that whilst women may have been oppressed due to their physical bodies this was not inevitable and certainly not a natural state.  Many believed that womanhood could only be understood in relation to male dominance, that patriarchy invented and policed what a woman was.  This famously led Wittig to declare that as a lesbian she was not a woman and her arguing to demolish the sex classification system - a goal shared by Dworkin and Firestone.  It is no surprise that most of the surviving women involved in that movement support trans inclusions, it is perfectly inline with the writings and imaginings of most 1970s radical feminists.
> 
> As many of it's adherents will angrily point out the gender critical movement is not a feminist movement but a movement which includes feminists.  It is a world away in both ideology and goals from radical second wave feminism.  It is essentially a  conservative doctrine that instead of calling for radical and revolutionary change accepts male violence as a biological inevitability from which women need protection in the form of single sex spaces and that the role of feminism should be to protect those spaces.  They are not fighting a class war in the way Firestone understood it with the aim of destroying the sex class system.  They are conceding defeat, and accepting society as it is, or as it was before trans people came along and ruined everything.



To be fair this isn't the complete story.  There is one current within second wave rad fems that has influenced the gender critical movement and that is political lesbian separatism - the idea that woman who have sex with men are sleeping with the enemy, that true feminists should overcome their patriarchal sexuality and declare themselves lesbians and as a group should seperate from men completely and form their own spaces and communities.  Many of the most strident feminist voices in the gender critical movement come from this tradition, most notably Sheila Jeffreys who really laid down the foundation for much of current GC ideology.


----------



## bimble (Mar 31, 2021)

Are Teuchter’s friends transphobes in your view smokedout ? They’re not much interested in policing women’s physical space, and I don’t think they are all man hating lesbians.
Your caricature just ignores most of the people I think you’re trying to smear. 
Maybe the focus on these big names that you allude to a lot (posey jeffreys whatever) is not helping much with understanding what’s really going on, imo, outside of the loudest voices on twitter.


----------



## smokedout (Mar 31, 2021)

bimble said:


> Are Teuchter’s friends transphobes in your view smokedout ? They’re not much interested in policing women’s physical space, and I don’t think they are all man hating lesbians.
> Your caricature just ignores most of the people I think you’re trying to smear.
> Maybe the focus on these big names that you allude to a lot (posey jeffreys whatever) is not helping much with understanding what’s really going on, imo, outside of the loudest voices on twitter.



I'm not trying to smear anybody, I was talking explicitly about the gender critical movement, their tactics, motivations and ideology.  It may be conveninent for people to frame this as people just asking questions or having concerns with a few extremists who can be handwaved away but the reality is there is a large and well funded movement, with supporters across the seats of power, scouring society looking for anything which makes trans lives easier, or recognises our existence and trying to destroy it - with I should say some success.  And every day their rhetoric becomes more extreme and more openly tolerated.  Within hours of the Bell verdict Transgender Trend announced they would begin campaigning against trans healthcare for under 25s.  There are calls from people judged as soppy moderates by many in the movement such as Woman's Place for bathroom bills and laws that would make the most conservative bible belt republican blush - and they are being listened to.  The far right are increasingly turning their attention to trans people, with approval, and even collaboration from some in the GC movement.  Conspiracy theories are flourishing and becoming ever more elaborate, trans people are accused of everything from being groomers to homophobes to paedophile enablers to secretly plotting to destroy women and children, and violent right wing men are listening and nodding along plotting.  And yet it is the gender critical movement that claims it is being silenced and abused, and that trans people, or 'TRAs', and increasingly anyone who thinks of themselves as Queer, are the aggressors whose so called ideology must be eradicated by any and all means necessary to save womankind.

This is a fucking emergency for trans people.  There are trans people leaving the country they are so scared of what might be to come.  Everything that trans people have fought for to enable us to live with some dignity and safety now feels under threat.  So I make no apologies for discussing the gender critical movement and to claim that doing so is smearing Teuchter’s friends is like complaining someone raising concerns about the organised far right is trying to smear their mate who's just a bit worried about the impact of immigration on the labour market.


----------



## bimble (Mar 31, 2021)

I get where you’re coming from I do.
I’m not following it at all anymore tbh, because it was -it really was-  full of hate (the ‘movement’, the loud ones, online). I’ve got almost nothing in common with the shouting people there. Think the fear of being called a transphobe drives people into the arms of that online extremism, it feeling unsafe to discuss in real life.

Curious as to whether you have thoughts on how come the UK seems to be an outlier, a sort of hotbed of ‘gender critical’ women.
My sort of partner reckons it’s to do with colonialism but I’ve never quite understood what he means. (We do not discuss this ever anymore, it almost split us up).


----------



## belboid (Mar 31, 2021)

Athos said:


> Did that happen?  I'm not denying it, btw, just don't think I've heard that particular allegation before.  Do you have a source, please?


 “Even deep voices, male insignia like baseball caps and boots can make women nervous,” wrote Lee Lakeman, a founder of the centre, in 2006. 

Canada's oldest rape crisis centre stripped of city funding for refusing to accept trans women | The Chronicle Herald (and various other places)


----------



## smokedout (Mar 31, 2021)

bimble said:


> I get where you’re coming from I do.
> I’m not following it at all anymore tbh, because it was full of hate and fear (the ‘movement’, online). I’ve got almost nothing in common with the shouting people there.
> 
> Curious as to whether you have thoughts on how come the UK seems to be an outlier, a sort of hotbed of ‘gender critical’ women.
> My sort of partner reckons it’s to do with colonialism but I’ve never quite understood what he means. We do not discuss this, it almost split us up.



I think it's a lot of things but mostly the monopoly of the right wing media in the UK - once Murdoch and the Mail come for you you're fucked, look what they did to benefit claimants for over a decade.  Also perhaps things like personal privacy is culturally more important here than elsewhere, the UK has never had topless beaches, or mixed sex toilets (or saunas!) like some comparable countries do.  There is a strong conservative streak in the UK and always has been.

I think there's probably some truth in the idea that colonialism has played a role in forming social attitudes.  The British Empire was responsible for the criminalisation of homosexuality in many places and launched a campaign in India to try and drive the Hijra people into extinction.



> Years after her murder, the provinces launched a campaign to reduce the number of eunuchs with the objective of gradually causing their "extinction". They were considered a "criminal tribe" under a controversial 1871 law which targeted caste groups considered to be hereditary criminals.
> The law armed the police with power of increased surveillance of the community. Police compiled registers of eunuchs with their personal details, often defining "an eunuch as a criminal and sexually deviant person". "Registration was a means of surveillance and also a way to ensure that castration was stamped out and the hijra population was not reproduced," says Dr Hinchy.
> 
> Eunuchs were not allowed to wear female clothing and jewellery or perform in public and were threatened with fines or thrown into prison if they did not comply. Police would even cut off their long hair and strip them if they wore female clothing and ornaments. They "experienced police intimidation and coercion, though the patterns of police violence are unclear", says Dr Hinchy.



So it's certainly there in the UK's history, how much that lingers and influences social attitudes today is difficult to untangle.


----------



## SpackleFrog (Mar 31, 2021)

smokedout said:


> The goal of most 1970s radical feminists was to destroy the sex class of women not endlessly police the borders.  There was a universal recognition that whilst women may have been oppressed due to their physical bodies this was not inevitable and certainly not a natural state.  Many believed that womanhood could only be understood in relation to male dominance, that patriarchy invented and policed what a woman was.  This famously led Wittig to declare that as a lesbian she was not a woman and her arguing to demolish the sex classification system - a goal shared by Dworkin and Firestone.  It is no surprise that most of the surviving women involved in that movement support trans inclusions, it is perfectly inline with the writings and imaginings of most 1970s radical feminists.
> 
> As many of it's adherents will angrily point out the gender critical movement is not a feminist movement but a movement which includes feminists.  It is a world away in both ideology and goals from radical second wave feminism.  It is essentially a  conservative doctrine that instead of calling for radical and revolutionary change accepts male violence as a biological inevitability from which women need protection in the form of single sex spaces and that the role of feminism should be to protect those spaces.  They are not fighting a class war in the way Firestone understood it with the aim of destroying the sex class system.  They are conceding defeat, and accepting society as it is, or as it was before trans people came along and ruined everything.



Thats an interesting point there. I didn't live through the period myself, so I accept its quite possible I'm influenced by the people I see quoting some of these thinkers - not specifically in relation to trans issues but on more general questions of womens oppression.


----------



## SpackleFrog (Mar 31, 2021)

bimble said:


> Not trying to claim superior knowledge due to that just your takes on this are so clumsy and your boots so big that it sort of feels disheartening.



I reckon your boots are bigger and clumsier than you give yourself credit for.


----------



## Santino (Mar 31, 2021)

belboid said:


> “Even deep voices, male insignia like baseball caps and boots can make women nervous,” wrote Lee Lakeman, a founder of the centre, in 2006.
> 
> Canada's oldest rape crisis centre stripped of city funding for refusing to accept trans women | The Chronicle Herald (and various other places)


That's not evidence of what Athos asked about.


----------



## Athos (Mar 31, 2021)

belboid said:


> “Even deep voices, male insignia like baseball caps and boots can make women nervous,” wrote Lee Lakeman, a founder of the centre, in 2006.
> 
> Canada's oldest rape crisis centre stripped of city funding for refusing to accept trans women | The Chronicle Herald (and various other places)



Thanks.  But, as far as I can tell, that's not saying they denied access to any females in the basis of a skinhead haircut or DM boots.


----------



## bimble (Mar 31, 2021)

smokedout said:


> I think it's a lot of things but mostly the monopoly of the right wing media in the UK - once Murdoch and the Mail come for you you're fucked, look what they did to benefit claimants for over a decade.  Also perhaps things like personal privacy is culturally more important here than elsewhere, the UK has never had topless beaches, or mixed sex toilets (or saunas!) like some comparable countries do.  There is a strong conservative streak in the UK and always has been.
> 
> I think there's probably some truth in the idea that colonialism has played a role in forming social attitudes.  The British Empire was responsible for the criminalisation of homosexuality in many places and launched a campaign in India to try and drive the Hijra people into extinction.
> 
> ...


I’m just going to plop this here. In another dimension of this website somebody sent me this link, in answer to my question.
And you can listen whilst cooking, no visuals just a nerd.



eta: Whole thing well worth a listen but just go to 26 mins in if you've no time.
It's Thatcher, basically. The resulting class consciousness that she helped foster in her wake and the rocky ground that exists here for simple identity politics given the fact that she did all of that whilst being a woman, is his take. I'm buying it.


----------



## belboid (Mar 31, 2021)

Athos said:


> Thanks.  But, as far as I can tell, that's not saying they denied access to any females in the basis of a skinhead haircut or DM boots.


It is, at the ery least, evidence that their 'gender criticalness' is as shallow as fuck


----------



## Athos (Mar 31, 2021)

belboid said:


> It is, at the ery least, evidence that their 'gender criticalness' is as shallow as fuck



Yeah, I think that's a fair criticism.  But their purpose is to keep women safe, rather than to critique gender.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Mar 31, 2021)

belboid said:


> It is, at the ery least, evidence that their 'gender criticalness' is as shallow as fuck



They're a women's collective, going since the 70s to provide shelter for women escaping male violence. They don't exist to provide a stance on gender criticalness. I think that's a clumsy-sounding statement, although it is quoted out of context, but it doesn't come close to demonstrating what you said. 

Do you think it is wrong for this collective to be allowed to make its own decision on trans women? I think it is important that they should have the autonomy to make the decision for themselves. The campaign against them, which may see them closed down conceivably, has helped nobody.


----------



## bimble (Mar 31, 2021)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Do you think it is wrong for this collective to be allowed to make its own decision on trans women?


clearly yes, everybody must agree, basically if a person says they are a woman they're a woman. that's it. Isnt it. Anything diverging from that is bigotry.

eta i'm buggering off again, these threads are so not good for me . have fun all.


----------



## belboid (Mar 31, 2021)

littlebabyjesus said:


> They're a women's collective, going since the 70s to provide shelter for women escaping male violence. They don't exist to provide a stance on gender criticalness. I think that's a clumsy-sounding statement, although it is quoted out of context, but it doesn't come close to demonstrating what you said.
> 
> Do you think it is wrong for this collective to be allowed to make its own decision on trans women? I think it is important that they should have the autonomy to make the decision for themselves. The campaign against them, which may see them closed down conceivably, has helped nobody.


I cba to go over this yet again, so all I'll say is, the woman who said it still plays a leading role, and their leadership is one of the few non-uk womens groups who are active i the 'GC' movement.  

Of course they can make their own decisions, but they then have to bear the consequences.  Which led to a loss of 3% of their funding from the council and a host of complaints from other organisations (of women & LGBT groups).  Doing good things doesn't give them an excuse to behave in an exclusionary way and more than it does, say, the Sally Army. The funding the council would have provided them went to a different organsiation, so that support was still there.

Ohh, and I'll just throw in the other obvious point - any organisation that refuses any men in it are discriminating against those large numbers of women with caring responsibilities.  Unless you think it's a good idea to leave male children/dependent adults with an abusive partner.


----------



## Border Reiver (Mar 31, 2021)

smokedout said:


> I'm not trying to smear anybody, I was talking explicitly about the gender critical movement, their tactics, motivations and ideology.  It may be conveninent for people to frame this as people just asking questions or having concerns with a few extremists who can be handwaved away but the reality is there is a large and well funded movement, with supporters across the seats of power, scouring society looking for anything which makes trans lives easier, or recognises our existence and trying to destroy it - with I should say some success.  And every day their rhetoric becomes more extreme and more openly tolerated.  Within hours of the Bell verdict Transgender Trend announced they would begin campaigning against trans healthcare for under 25s.  There are calls from people judged as soppy moderates by many in the movement such as Woman's Place for bathroom bills and laws that would make the most conservative bible belt republican blush - and they are being listened to.  The far right are increasingly turning their attention to trans people, with approval, and even collaboration from some in the GC movement.  Conspiracy theories are flourishing and becoming ever more elaborate, trans people are accused of everything from being groomers to homophobes to paedophile enablers to secretly plotting to destroy women and children, and violent right wing men are listening and nodding along plotting.  And yet it is the gender critical movement that claims it is being silenced and abused, and that trans people, or 'TRAs', and increasingly anyone who thinks of themselves as Queer, are the aggressors whose so called ideology must be eradicated by any and all means necessary to save womankind.
> 
> This is a fucking emergency for trans people.  There are trans people leaving the country they are so scared of what might be to come.  Everything that trans people have fought for to enable us to live with some dignity and safety now feels under threat.  So I make no apologies for discussing the gender critical movement and to claim that doing so is smearing Teuchter’s friends is like complaining someone raising concerns about the organised far right is trying to smear their mate who's just a bit worried about the impact of immigration on the labour market.



I see no chance of legislation being made in England against trans rights. If anything the ratchet is likely to move the other way. There is always Scotland. I expect the recent  High Court ruling on hormone blockers to be overturned. Parental consent has already been found to still exist.


----------



## Border Reiver (Mar 31, 2021)

smokedout said:


> I think it's a lot of things but mostly the monopoly of the right wing media in the UK - once Murdoch and the Mail come for you you're fucked, look what they did to benefit claimants for over a decade.  Also perhaps things like personal privacy is culturally more important here than elsewhere, the UK has never had topless beaches, or mixed sex toilets (or saunas!) like some comparable countries do.  There is a strong conservative streak in the UK and always has been.
> 
> I think there's probably some truth in the idea that colonialism has played a role in forming social attitudes.  The British Empire was responsible for the criminalisation of homosexuality in many places and launched a campaign in India to try and drive the Hijra people into extinction.
> 
> ...



The UK has always had nudist beaches. There is no English law against toplessness or public nudity.


----------



## Knotted (Mar 31, 2021)

bimble said:


> I’m just going to plop this here. In another dimension of this website somebody sent me this link, in answer to my question.
> And you can listen whilst cooking, no visuals just a nerd.
> 
> 
> ...




I've come across him before. The whole trans rights="self identity essentialism" thing doesn't wash. As he's talking Marxist materialism, he's explaining the real material movement in terms of the (supposed) ideology, which is exactly anti-materialist (at least in Marxist terms). As I was trying to get at above, people explain their reality and desire for change in terms which may well be imperfect, but defeating the ideas ("self identity essentialism") will not change the basis for the movement which in any case has several competing ideas (self identity, performative theory, medicalist ideas etc.). I am aware that elsewhere he is very fussily concerned about defending feminist theory against queer theory, but I don't see feminist ideas about eg. sex and gender as being brittle. They're social/ structural theories that you can ring fence from biological nuances and ideas from queer theory, I think, without much damage to any of these theories. You can allow for a bit of fuzziness in your categories in social theory. Some footnotes may have to be written, and that doesn't seem like a massive problem.

As for the Terf island question. He seems to be just comparing the UK with the US (I haven't watched the whole thing) but in doing so he's more highlighting the US's peculiarities rather than the UK's - that Reagan's neoliberalism wasn't as explicitly class based as Thatcher's. The US's politics revolve heavily around race because of the history. It's odd to claim that the UK is particularly class conscious in a Marxist sense, nice thought, but huh? And I don't see how you go from Marxist (or subconsciously Marxist) to gender critical. Again from a Marxist materialist pov the gender critical movement is not a product of gender critical ideas, it's a product of material interests. Not that I have a good answer to this question.


----------



## smokedout (Mar 31, 2021)

bimble said:


> I’m just going to plop this here. In another dimension of this website somebody sent me this link, in answer to my question.
> And you can listen whilst cooking, no visuals just a nerd.
> 
> 
> ...




God he waffles, I can't sit through all that.  I think he seems to be saying that the premise of third wave feminism, and by extention post modernism which he presumes created trans inclusive ideas, is equal inclusion of women within power structures but because Thatcher was a woman and wasn't very nice then third wave feminism never took off here.  And because Thatcher's legacy was economic and not social (try telling that to LGB people), whereas Reagan's wasn't then this made everyone in the UK much more class conscious and influenced by Marxism which rejects identity politics and so is sceptical of trans people.  Sorry but it's ahistorical, dishonest, garbled nonsense which seems to be more a clumsy attempt to smear trans people from the left by associating them with Thatcher than it is an attempt at meaningful analysis.


----------



## smokedout (Mar 31, 2021)

Apologies to Knotted who managed a much more decent critique than I could be bothered with that I hadn't read when I posted.


----------



## Kevbad the Bad (Mar 31, 2021)

belboid said:


> Ohh, and I'll just throw in the other obvious point - any organisation that refuses any men in it are discriminating against those large numbers of women with caring responsibilities.  Unless you think it's a good idea to leave male children/dependent adults with an abusive partner.


There's always been a debate in women's refuges about how to cope with boys/young men. It's not easy to make decisions and you can be criticised whatever way you go, on theoretical, practical and legal grounds. It strikes me that firstly, this is a diversion (not unheard of, tbf), secondly, that any such decisions should belong to those running and living in the refuges, and thirdly, any such decisions should not be subject to change on any kind of regular basis, otherwise no-one will know where they stand and they could spend all their time debating the issue.


----------



## Knotted (Mar 31, 2021)

smokedout said:


> Apologies to Knotted who managed a much more decent critique than I could be bothered with that I hadn't read when I posted.



Thanks. No worries.


----------



## SpackleFrog (Mar 31, 2021)

bimble said:


> clearly yes, everybody must agree, basically if a person says they are a woman they're a woman. that's it. Isnt it. Anything diverging from that is bigotry.



I don't know why you didn't just say that in the first place.


----------



## hitmouse (Mar 31, 2021)

bimble said:


> Curious as to whether you have thoughts on how come the UK seems to be an outlier, a sort of hotbed of ‘gender critical’ women.


My working hypothesis is because this hell island is under some kind of a curse, because that's how I explain most things about the UK, tbh. I'd guess that some of it is due to the closed nature of the British media/establishment, meaning that once people get entrenched as, say, the media's go-to voice of British feminism they're quite hard to shift? Guessing you must have seen that Sophie Lewis article from a few years back, which I don't think is that great but kind of has a go at trying to provide an explanation? This tries to cover the history as well. Again, I'm not actually a huge fan of the podcast and have only listened to a few episodes, but there's a show called Blood and Terf that covers this territory a lot, here's an episode they did on "the long march through the institutions". In either that episode or a different one they talk about an article covering this history, but I can't find it now and I didn't really think it was a great article anyway,


----------



## ska invita (Mar 31, 2021)

hitmouse said:


> My working hypothesis is because this hell island is under some kind of a curse, because that's how I explain most things about the UK, tbh.


I reckon most things can be traced to Restoration | English history [1660]


----------



## 19force8 (Mar 31, 2021)

What kills me is how some parts of the left in the UK have gone full transphobe, eg the morning star.


----------



## Spanner (Apr 1, 2021)

19force8 said:


> What kills me is how some parts of the left in the UK have gone full transphobe, eg the morning star.


Not sure one unauthorised and quickly unpublished cartoon equals “gone full transphobe”


----------



## SpackleFrog (Apr 1, 2021)

Spanner said:


> Not sure one unauthorised and quickly unpublished cartoon equals “gone full transphobe”


----------



## bmd (Apr 1, 2021)

Santino said:


> That's not evidence of what Athos asked about.



Has Athos ever talked about anything with a genuine desire for knowledge? I honestly haven't seen that. All I've seen is a shit-stirring cunt.


----------



## bmd (Apr 1, 2021)

SpackleFrog said:


> You can't 'simply' identify into womanhood though. The process takes two years and because of people like you the changes to the Gender Recognition Act have been dropped so you will also need to provide medical evidence of gender dysphoria and be signed off by a doctor. Which is what all this is actually about remember - that despite a government consultation that showed 80% of people support removing the requirement for medical evidence to transition, we continue to demand trans people provide medical evidence.
> 
> Eddie Izzard is hardly a representative example, is she? And in any case she's quite clear that she wants to be treated as a woman from now on - not to switch between boy and girl mode as you claim. Eddie Izzard: Comedian and actor opts to use pronouns 'she' and 'her'
> 
> ...



This is the problem, all of it, that I have with Trans people. I am a natural born man. I was seen as a male from that moment and treated as such. The external view of me has moulded me just as much, if not more tbh, than my own view of me. I was expected to be a male. To act like one. To eat like one. To walk like one and on and on.

Trans people, do what you want, call yourself what you want. I really have no problem with that. But it's your lived experience that sets you apart from me as a man and my sister as woman. Yes, that very probably is totally shit for you. I don't want it to be but I can't change the reality and neither can you just by saying some words.


----------



## krtek a houby (Apr 1, 2021)

How do natural born males (aren't all males born "naturally" or with medical assistance) act, eat and walk, in general?


----------



## bmd (Apr 1, 2021)

krtek a houby said:


> How do natural born males (aren't all males born "naturally" or with medical assistance) act, eat and walk, in general?



Really? You've no idea how genders are divided, starting from birth? None? Really?


----------



## bmd (Apr 1, 2021)

For the purposes of this thread 'natural born' is a distinction. But then you already knew that. I'm not into fucking about with your "I know what you mean but I'm going to say I don't" bollocks. Fair warning and all that.


----------



## kabbes (Apr 1, 2021)

“Good morning, boys and girls!”
“Good morning, miss!”


----------



## SpackleFrog (Apr 1, 2021)

bmd said:


> I was expected to be a male. To act like one. To eat like one. To walk like one and on and on.



Maybe this is the bit for you to focus on, instead of "having a problem with trans people".


----------



## bmd (Apr 1, 2021)

SpackleFrog said:


> Maybe this is the bit for you to focus on, instead of "having a problem with trans people".



Why's that?


----------



## SpackleFrog (Apr 1, 2021)

kabbes said:


> “Good morning, boys and girls!”
> “Good morning, miss!”



Hi De Hi, campers!


----------



## SpackleFrog (Apr 1, 2021)

bmd said:


> Why's that?



You seem capable of recognising that males are expected to behave a certain way. Maybe from here you can manage to recognise that many people struggle with that in all kinds of different ways.


----------



## bmd (Apr 1, 2021)

SpackleFrog said:


> You seem capable of recognising that males are expected to behave a certain way. Maybe from here you can manage to recognise that many people struggle with that in all kinds of different ways.



You are one taking my words without the context in which they were phrased. I clearly don't have a problem, per se, with Trans people and I can clearly see the struggle that Trans people have. CLEARLY, that was not my point.

Fucking hell.


----------



## SpackleFrog (Apr 1, 2021)

bmd said:


> You are one taking my words without the context in which they were phrased. I clearly don't have a problem, per se, with Trans people and I can clearly see the struggle that Trans people have. CLEARLY, that was not my point.
> 
> Fucking hell.







bmd said:


> This is the problem, all of it, that I have with Trans people.


----------



## bmd (Apr 1, 2021)

SpackleFrog said:


>



Fuck off eh. Cba with you.


----------



## SpackleFrog (Apr 1, 2021)

bmd said:


> Fuck off eh. Cba with you.



Not slept mate?


----------



## krtek a houby (Apr 1, 2021)

bmd said:


> Really? You've no idea how genders are divided, starting from birth? None? Really?



Be interested in how acting, eating and walking defines this male concept you mentioned.


----------



## bmd (Apr 1, 2021)

This is in reply to a pm I just received lol. Sorry to the person who PM'd me. I thought I was replying via pm but posted it here instead. God I'm thick.

This could be a lot of words. To keep it short, I want to talk about something not semantics. Did you honestly not know what I meant? That you believe all I was saying was that I have a problem with Trans people, full stop? I hate even having to qualify my words but I do, on here, because people do shit like you are doing. Take a phrase, twist it to match what they want to argue about and fire it back at you with the belief that you will engage on that ground just because that's what they have decided you should be doing. The problem I have with Trans people is that they do not have the same lived experience as me, so how do we talk about this if we are going to insist that there are zero differences between us when there clearly are?

There, kept it short.


----------



## ManchesterBeth (Apr 1, 2021)

littlebabyjesus said:


> That's highly questionable tbf, unless you're going the whole hog and calling all things constructs, which is all very well but not very useful. It's very hard to explain the workings of sexual reproduction without employing the category 'sex'.



Sex and sexual reproduction is biological, but being critical of gender or attributing characteristics to biological sex is not inherently biological but political, which is why the development of artificial wombs will be such an eventual challenge to radical feminism as a political project because it immediately undercuts the basis for the concept of womanhood, which cannot be directly deduced from physical biology but in social intercourse. The only way I see around this contradiction is to deny consciousness entirely.


----------



## krtek a houby (Apr 1, 2021)

Nobody has the same lived experience.


----------



## bmd (Apr 1, 2021)

krtek a houby said:


> Be interested in how acting, eating and walking defines this male concept you mentioned.



No you wouldn't because you're not so thick as to think that I wasn't just using those as examples to make a point about the way gender is instilled from birth.


----------



## bmd (Apr 1, 2021)

Anyway, my apologies for the distraction. I'll step away from this thread as I don't wish to do that any longer.


----------



## krtek a houby (Apr 1, 2021)

bmd said:


> No you wouldn't because you're not so thick as to think that I wasn't just using those as examples to make a point about the way gender is instilled from birth.



Ok, am acting thick while you eat your words and walk away from the thread


----------



## Athos (Apr 1, 2021)

bmd said:


> Has Athos ever talked about anything with a genuine desire for knowledge? I honestly haven't seen that. All I've seen is a shit-stirring cunt.



All this because of what happened on that other thread? You should remember that it wasn't me who made you look silly, it was you. And you're doing so, again.


----------



## Athos (Apr 1, 2021)

bmd said:


> You are one taking my words without the context in which they were phrased.


Isn't it funny how that keeps happening?


----------



## hitmouse (Apr 1, 2021)

Spanner said:


> Not sure one unauthorised and quickly unpublished cartoon equals “gone full transphobe”


I don't think the problem somehow starts and ends with one cartoon.









						A response to the Morning Star trans rights controversy, from trade union activists
					

This was written in response to the recent statement published in the Morning Star. It has also been submitted to the Morning Star for publication. We, the undersigned, delegates at the 2018 TUC LG…




					theclarionmag.org
				



Etc etc 
How does an "unauthorised cartoon" find itself getting published, btw?


----------



## Edie (Apr 1, 2021)

[


belboid said:


> I cba to go over this yet again, so all I'll say is, the woman who said it still plays a leading role, and their leadership is one of the few non-uk womens groups who are active i the 'GC' movement.
> 
> Of course they can make their own decisions, but they then have to bear the consequences.  Which led to a loss of 3% of their funding from the council and a host of complaints from other organisations (of women & LGBT groups).  Doing good things doesn't give them an excuse to behave in an exclusionary way and more than it does, say, the Sally Army. The funding the council would have provided them went to a different organsiation, so that support was still there.
> 
> Ohh, and I'll just throw in the other obvious point - any organisation that refuses any men in it are discriminating against those large numbers of women with caring responsibilities.  Unless you think it's a good idea to leave male children/dependent adults with an abusive partner.


You make my skin crawl. Yes those women who make decisions for themselves should bear the consequences shouldn’t they belboid. Let’s cut their money to teach them a lesson about excluding men. Creep.

Also SpackleFrog I don’t give a fuck about your Marxism and your ‘women aren’t a class’ excuses. I bet women were as fucked under communism as they have been under capitalism.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Apr 1, 2021)

belboid said:


> I cba to go over this yet again, so all I'll say is, the woman who said it still plays a leading role, and their leadership is one of the few non-uk womens groups who are active i the 'GC' movement.
> 
> Of course they can make their own decisions, but they then have to bear the consequences.  Which led to a loss of 3% of their funding from the council and a host of complaints from other organisations (of women & LGBT groups).  Doing good things doesn't give them an excuse to behave in an exclusionary way and more than it does, say, the Sally Army. The funding the council would have provided them went to a different organsiation, so that support was still there.
> 
> Ohh, and I'll just throw in the other obvious point - any organisation that refuses any men in it are discriminating against those large numbers of women with caring responsibilities.  Unless you think it's a good idea to leave male children/dependent adults with an abusive partner.



You're right that their leadership has been active in the 'GC' movement. Mostly, I suspect, because they have been fighting a legal battle against the trans woman they refused to employ as a volunteer. This is how wedges are driven in. The trans woman in question (who was post-op) was clearly very hurt by the decision to refuse to employ her, but she clearly also didn't respect the collective's right to make its own decisions on this matter. She tried to obtain a legal ruling that they do not have that right. In doing so, she and her supporters did harm.

I'm sure you're aware that operations in sectors that rely wholly or partly on volunteers are not zero-sum. It's not just about funding, but crucially it requires the people with the motivation, energy, time and ability to keep everything together. Lose a refuge like this one - the very first of its kind in Vancouver - and you can't just transfer the money somewhere else without losing out. 

Here in the UK, the 2010 Equality Act currently provides an explicit exception for women's refuges. I think that's a proportionate exception, and you don't have to agree with the decision necessarily, just respect the right of those running the refuges to make it.


----------



## SpackleFrog (Apr 1, 2021)

Edie said:


> [
> 
> You make my skin crawl. Yes those women who make decisions for themselves should bear the consequences shouldn’t they belboid. Let’s cut their money to teach them a lesson about excluding men. Creep.
> 
> Also SpackleFrog I don’t give a fuck about your Marxism and your ‘women aren’t a class’ excuses. I bet women were as fucked under communism as they have been under capitalism.



Jesus people are in a bad mood this morning...

The USSR, despite things going badly wrong, was the first country to allow women to divorce their husbands and the first country to provide safe legal abortions. It also provided free communal childcare. So your bet would be a daft one and you'd lose your dollar.


----------



## Edie (Apr 1, 2021)

SpackleFrog said:


> Jesus people are in a bad mood this morning...
> 
> The USSR, despite things going badly wrong, was the first country to allow women to divorce their husbands and the first country to provide safe legal abortions. It also provided free communal childcare. So your bet would be a daft one and you'd lose your dollar.


Oh god should we be _grateful_ for that?

Scratch the surface of ‘feminist’ men and find this.


----------



## SpackleFrog (Apr 1, 2021)

Edie said:


> Oh god should we be _grateful_ for that?
> 
> Scratch the surface of ‘feminist’ men and find this.



What do you mean? 

Women in Russia in 1917 weren't grateful for these things, they fought for them.

If you want to dismiss those achievements then fine. But what will you put in their place?


----------



## smokedout (Apr 1, 2021)

littlebabyjesus said:


> You're right that their leadership has been active in the 'GC' movement. Mostly, I suspect, because they have been fighting a legal battle against the trans woman they refused to employ as a volunteer. This is how wedges are driven in. The trans woman in question (who was post-op) was clearly very hurt by the decision to refuse to employ her, but she clearly also didn't respect the collective's right to make its own decisions on this matter. She tried to obtain a legal ruling that they do not have that right. In doing so, she and her supporters did harm.



Are you saying that someone who feels they have been discriminated against shouldn't do anything about it if the organisation that they felt were discriminatory otherwise does good work?  One of the reasons there is so much confusion about the law relating to trans people in the UK is that there is no case law.  Laws like this are expected to be tested, that's how the legal system works.  Surely the problem is how these cases are funded rather then someone acting perfectly legally in an attempt to assert their rights under the law?

VRR were not radicalised by this case.  They have always been a radical feminist organisation with a strong ideological basis.  They refer to sex workers as prostituted women for example, something which concerns me more given their client group then their policies on trans women.



> Here in the UK, the 2010 Equality Act currently provides an explicit exception for women's refuges. I think that's a proportionate exception, and you don't have to agree with the decision necessarily, just respect the right of those running the refuges to make it.



No the Equality Act does not provide an explicit exception for refuges.  It is likely that a refuge would fall under the scope of a proportionate and legitimate aim, depending on the nature of the discrimination, but it is not known for sure due to the reasons I gave above.  In actual fact several VAWG organisations including Women's Aid want this clarified, which can only really be achieved by either additional legislation or someone bringing a case just like the one in Vancouver.


----------



## smokedout (Apr 1, 2021)

Also littlebabyjesus are you going to answer my question, do you think Posie Parker is transphobic?

You are very keen to endlessly philosophise and scrutinise the lives of trans people but you seem somewhat reluctant to your own opinions being under any scrutiny.


----------



## seventh bullet (Apr 1, 2021)

SpackleFrog said:


> Jesus people are in a bad mood this morning...
> 
> The USSR, despite things going badly wrong, was the first country to allow women to divorce their husbands and the first country to provide safe legal abortions. It also provided free communal childcare. So your bet would be a daft one and you'd lose your dollar.



The Soviet Union, despite pointing to the achievements of sections of the newly formed Soviet intelligentsia as proof of their superiority, saw most women stuck in some of the lowest paid, lowest status and some of the most physically arduous labour, as well as social provisions being only theoretical depending on where you lived and who/what you were.  The double burden of work outside the home and social reproduction inside of it was little different to other relatively industrialised and thoroughly patriarchal societies.


----------



## SpackleFrog (Apr 1, 2021)

seventh bullet said:


> The Soviet Union, despite pointing to the achievements of sections of the newly formed Soviet intelligentsia as proof of their superiority, saw most women stuck in some of the lowest paid, lowest status and some of the most physically arduous labour, as well as social provisions being only theoretical depending on where you lived and who/what you were.  The double burden of work outside the home and social reproduction inside of it was little different to other relatively industrialised and thoroughly patriarchal societies.



I did say things went badly wrong, didn't I? But you can't deny the initial achievements of the revolution.


----------



## belboid (Apr 1, 2021)

littlebabyjesus said:


> You're right that their leadership has been active in the 'GC' movement. Mostly, I suspect, because they have been fighting a legal battle against the trans woman they refused to employ as a volunteer. This is how wedges are driven in. The trans woman in question (who was post-op) was clearly very hurt by the decision to refuse to employ her, but she clearly also didn't respect the collective's right to make its own decisions on this matter. She tried to obtain a legal ruling that they do not have that right. In doing so, she and her supporters did harm.
> 
> I'm sure you're aware that operations in sectors that rely wholly or partly on volunteers are not zero-sum. It's not just about funding, but crucially it requires the people with the motivation, energy, time and ability to keep everything together. Lose a refuge like this one - the very first of its kind in Vancouver - and you can't just transfer the money somewhere else without losing out.
> 
> Here in the UK, the 2010 Equality Act currently provides an explicit exception for women's refuges. I think that's a proportionate exception, and you don't have to agree with the decision necessarily, just respect the right of those running the refuges to make it.


98% of that has fuck all to do with what I posted.  

and most refuges accept trans women and have done for decades.   The reactionaries you support are a minority there.


----------



## Kevbad the Bad (Apr 1, 2021)

SpackleFrog said:


> I did say things went badly wrong, didn't I? But you can't deny the initial achievements of the revolution.


Total diversion from the thread, but the significant initial achievements of the Revolution were mass starvation, secret police, massive expansion of the prison system, denial of political freedoms and rule by hypocritical gangsters. That was from the word 'go'. Nothing to aspire to.


----------



## Shechemite (Apr 1, 2021)

And eugenics. Yay bolshevism


----------



## belboid (Apr 1, 2021)

Edie said:


> You make my skin crawl. Yes those women who make decisions for themselves should bear the consequences shouldn’t they belboid. Let’s cut their money to teach them a lesson about excluding men. Creep.


They’re not excluding men, they’re excluding women.   And acting illegally.   Of course they’ll get their money cut in such circumstances.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Apr 1, 2021)

belboid said:


> They’re not excluding men, they’re excluding women.   And acting illegally.   Of course they’ll get their money cut in such circumstances.


They're not acting illegally. Not that 'is it legal?' is the same as the test of 'is it right?'


----------



## belboid (Apr 1, 2021)

That aint what VCC thought.  And, no, their discrimination isn't right either.


----------



## 8ball (Apr 1, 2021)

Just as an aside, been listening to a video with two doctors discussing autism and synaesthesia type stuff and it’s kind of alternately weird, alienating and sometimes annoying having something that is quite core to you being discussed as if you were a lab rat.

These aren’t people likely to interfere with my life or rights in any way, but it made me think of this thread... for some reason.


----------



## Orang Utan (Apr 1, 2021)

8ball said:


> Just as an aside, been listening to a video with two doctors discussing autism and synaesthesia type stuff and it’s kind of alternately weird, alienating and sometimes annoying having something that is quite core to you being discussed as if you were a lab rat.
> 
> These aren’t people likely to interfere with my life or rights in any way, but it made me think of this thread... for some reason.


Yes I find the philosophising on this thread a bit, I dunno, redundant and kind of insensitive. It’s like talking about whether someone nearby is semantically aflame or not, while they’re running around screaming that they’re on fire


----------



## 8ball (Apr 1, 2021)

Orang Utan said:


> Yes I find the philosophising on this thread a bit, I dunno, redundant and kind of insensitive. It’s like talking about whether someone nearby is semantically aflame or not, while they’re running around screaming that they’re on fire



I think it’s understandable.  To put it in a context - for most people the barriers between senses and other senses, and the barriers between senses and concepts are all so solid (it must be very _tidy_), that it must just seem like some neurodiverse people are talking in the kinds of metaphors our language is littered with.  To them, it is just reality, as is mine to me.
I can’t really tell someone why or how the colour blue and the number four are the same as each other, and I know someone else can feel the exact way about how it’s really green, but we both share something in common that sounds quite alien to many others, and we both may also use completely different analogies and models to try to communicate that.

I don’t know many trans people, but the few I know have communicated things quite differently to each other, with some experiential historical elements in common, and more divergent tellings of how it feels from the inside.

I’m guilty of the philosophising/sciencing myself, and I’d hope that any trans people on the thread give some warning well before it gets to be too much, because the insights really seem to come through when things are less analytical and also less confrontational.


----------



## teuchter (Apr 1, 2021)

I don't really think synesthesia offers a useful analogy here.


----------



## SpackleFrog (Apr 1, 2021)

Kevbad the Bad said:


> Total diversion from the thread, but the significant initial achievements of the Revolution were mass starvation, secret police, massive expansion of the prison system, denial of political freedoms and rule by hypocritical gangsters. That was from the word 'go'. Nothing to aspire to.



Yawn


----------



## 8ball (Apr 1, 2021)

teuchter said:


> I don't really think synesthesia offers a useful analogy here.



No, I only meant it insofar as something that’s really hard to usefully describe, and maybe that feeling when being discussed “dispassionately”.


----------



## 8ball (Apr 1, 2021)

SpackleFrog said:


> Yawn



Something for another thread?


----------



## iona (Apr 1, 2021)

teuchter said:


> I don't really think synesthesia offers a useful analogy here.


I'm trans and autistic with synaesthesia type sensory processing weirdness and what (I think) 8ball was saying made complete sense to me...


----------



## 8ball (Apr 1, 2021)

iona said:


> I'm trans and autistic with synaesthesia type sensory processing weirdness and what (I think) 8ball was saying made complete sense to me...



Thanks.


----------



## Orang Utan (Apr 1, 2021)

8ball said:


> I think it’s understandable.  To put it in a context - for most people the barriers between senses and other senses, and the barriers between senses and concepts are all so solid (it must be very _tidy_), that it must just seem like some neurodiverse people are talking in the kinds of metaphors our language is littered with.  To them, it is just reality, as is mine to me.
> I can’t really tell someone why or how the colour blue and the number four are the same as each other, and I know someone else can feel the exact way about how it’s really green, but we both share something in common that sounds quite alien to many others, and we both may also use completely different analogies and models to try to communicate that.
> 
> I don’t know many trans people, but the few I know have communicated things quite differently to each other, with some experiential historical elements in common, and more divergent tellings of how it feels from the inside.
> ...


And yet nearly all the trans people or people with trans loved one have flown this coop already or put these sort of threads on ignore. I can’t see anything in this thread that is going encourage them to come back


----------



## 8ball (Apr 1, 2021)

Orang Utan said:


> And yet nearly all the trans people or people with trans loved one have flown this coop already or put these sort of threads on ignore. I can’t see anything in this thread that is going encourage them to come back



Fair point.  Still, there are a couple left and you never know who looks in from time to time.


----------



## A380 (Apr 1, 2021)

SpackleFrog said:


> Jesus people are in a bad mood this morning...
> 
> ...was the first country to allow women to divorce their husbands and the first country...


 Sorry that's tanky bollocks. Women could petition for and be granted divorces against their husbands will in most of the Anglo Saxon kingdoms. Likewise Islam has always allowed a woman to petition a judge for a divorce against her husbands will.


----------



## smokedout (Apr 1, 2021)

8ball said:


> I’m guilty of the philosophising/sciencing myself, and I’d hope that any trans people on the thread give some warning well before it gets to be too much, because the insights really seem to come through when things are less analytical and also less confrontational.



It got too much about 3 years ago.


----------



## Spanner (Apr 2, 2021)

hitmouse said:


> I don't think the problem somehow starts and ends with one cartoon.
> View attachment 261224
> 
> 
> ...


I’ve worked in newspapers most of my life...including {{trigger warning}} the Daily Express, The Sun and The Times, Sunday Times, and a shitload of regional local rags. 

All sorts of shit gets published without the editor’s say so!


----------



## two sheds (Apr 2, 2021)

sounds like particularly poor training then


----------



## krtek a houby (Apr 2, 2021)

Transphobes, counter revolutionaries and the Daily Express now?

FFS


----------



## Border Reiver (Apr 2, 2021)

littlebabyjesus said:


> They're not acting illegally. Not that 'is it legal?' is the same as the test of 'is it right?'


It depends. If a business refused access it is a potential civil matter. If a group or individual actively and directly target the rights of a person with. GRC to access women only spaces it is potentially aggravated harrassment.

Exactly the same as race, gender or sexuality.


----------



## Border Reiver (Apr 2, 2021)

A380 said:


> Sorry that's tanky bollocks. Women could petition for and be granted divorces against their husbands will in most of the Anglo Saxon kingdoms. Likewise Islam has always allowed a woman to petition a judge for a divorce against her husbands will.


First to allow divorce to all, male/female, rich/poor.


----------



## A380 (Apr 2, 2021)

Border Reiver said:


> First to allow divorce to all, male/female, rich/poor.


I see you know nothing about the USSR either.


----------



## Orang Utan (Apr 2, 2021)

A380 said:


> I see you know nothing about the USSR either.


Think they’re talking about Islam


----------



## Border Reiver (Apr 2, 2021)

A380 said:


> I see you know nothing about the USSR either.



Which other country previously allowed free access to divorce independent of gender or class?

I see you know nothing if truth.


----------



## A380 (Apr 2, 2021)

Border Reiver said:


> Which other country previously allowed free access to divorce independent of gender or class?
> 
> I see you know nothing if truth.


If truth?

I see someone’s left the gate at the fuckwit farm open again.


----------



## Border Reiver (Apr 2, 2021)

A380 said:


> If truth?
> 
> I see someone’s left the gate at the fuckwit farm open again.



I see you are interested in abuse, not debate or a search for truth. Onto ignore.


----------



## Sue (Apr 2, 2021)

Border Reiver said:


> I see you are interested in abuse, not debate or a search for truth. *Onto ignore.*


How many's that now, Border Reiver?


----------



## two sheds (Apr 2, 2021)

Sue said:


> How many's that now, Border Reiver?


and I'm on a knife edge


----------



## A380 (Apr 2, 2021)

Border Reiver said:


> I see you are interested in abuse, not debate or a search for truth. Onto ignore.


I understand now, you are trying to get into the Guinness Book of Records for the quickest time to rejoin U75 and tell all the other posters they are on ignore.

you ‘done’ yet?


----------



## Sue (Apr 2, 2021)

two sheds said:


> and I'm on a knife edge


Gutting.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Apr 2, 2021)

Border Reiver said:


> It depends. If a business refused access it is a potential civil matter. If a group or individual actively and directly target the rights of a person with. GRC to access women only spaces it is potentially aggravated harrassment.
> 
> Exactly the same as race, gender or sexuality.



Not sure what country you're referring to here. In Canada, the action of the refuge has been judged legal by a court. 

Here in the UK, there has been clarification about the way the 2010 Act should be interpreted. Parliament has clarified to make certain exceptions more explicit. 



> The third exception (Schedule 3, paragraph 28) allows providers of separate or single-sex services to provide a different service to, or to exclude, someone who has the protected characteristic of gender reassignment. This includes those who have a Gender Recognition Certificate (GRC), as well as someone who does not have a GRC but otherwise meets the definition under the Equality Act 2010.
> 
> Application of this exception must be objectively justified as a means of achieving a legitimate aim. An example given in the explanatory notes to the Act is that of a group counselling service for female victims of sexual assault where the organisers could exclude a woman with the protected characteristic of gender reassignment if they judge that clients would be unlikely to attend the session if she was there.
> 
> Schedule 23, paragraph 3 of the Equality Act 2010 also allows a service provider to exclude a person from dormitories or other shared sleeping accommodation, and to refuse services connected to providing this accommodation on grounds of sex or gender reassignment. As with paragraph 28 and other exceptions under the Equality Act, such exclusion must be a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim.



Enforcing the Equality Act: the law and the role of the Equality and Human Rights Commission - Women and Equalities Committee - House of Commons

There's lots to be argued over here, but a lot of what you're saying on this thread simply isn't true. In particular, possession of a GRC isn't the crucial point here. You don't need to have a GRC necessarily to be protected by the Act, but also having one doesn't affect these exemptions.


----------



## A380 (Apr 2, 2021)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Not sure what country you're referring to here. In Canada, the action of the refuge has been judged legal by a court.
> 
> Here in the UK, there has been clarification about the way the 2010 Act should be interpreted. Parliament has clarified to make certain exceptions more explicit.
> 
> ...


Careful, you’ll be on their ignore list soon...


----------



## Sue (Apr 2, 2021)

Are you waiting for the big ignore hammer to fall, littlebabyjesus?


----------



## Gromit (Apr 2, 2021)

I haven’t read the entire thread. 
Just checking back in. 

It was established that the woman was a transphobe yes?

I’m worried about whether the OP got their question categorically answered or not.


----------



## Kevbad the Bad (Apr 2, 2021)

Gromit said:


> I haven’t read the entire thread.
> Just checking back in.
> 
> It was established that the woman was a transphobe yes?
> ...


Well, yes and no


----------



## MickiQ (Apr 2, 2021)

Gromit said:


> I haven’t read the entire thread.
> Just checking back in.
> 
> It was established that the woman was a transphobe yes?
> ...


A line has been drawn in the sand those on the one side are adamant she is not, those on the other are adamant she is. This remains a  subject where any rational debate is difficult to say the least, way too much emotion involved.


Border Reiver said:


> I see you are interested in abuse, not debate or a search for truth. Onto ignore.


I don't believe you are putting anyone on ignore it became obvious a while back that you are more interested in getting a rise out of people than anyything else so ignoring them would be self defeating.


----------



## A380 (Apr 2, 2021)

MickiQ said:


> A line has been drawn in the sand those on the one side are adamant she is not, those on the other are adamant she is. This remains a  subject where any rational debate is difficult to say the least, way too much emotion involved.
> I see you are interested in abuse, not debate or a search for truth. Onto ignore.


I don't believe you are putting anyone on ignore it became obvious a while back that you are more interested in getting a rise out of people than anyything else so ignoring them would be self defeating.
[/QUOTE]
They have forgotten who they 'have on ignore' and responded to them on other threads - they could at least have a post it note on their lap top to maintain the artifice.


----------



## Border Reiver (Apr 2, 2021)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Not sure what country you're referring to here. In Canada, the action of the refuge has been judged legal by a court.
> 
> Here in the UK, there has been clarification about the way the 2010 Act should be interpreted. Parliament has clarified to make certain exceptions more explicit.
> 
> ...


You need to understand hie "proportionate" is interpreted by the courts. Perhaps you cannorovide done by samples from case law on his this deviates from my view. You know, actual cases where people with GRC have been excluded from a female only area.


----------



## Border Reiver (Apr 2, 2021)

MickiQ said:


> A line has been drawn in the sand those on the one side are adamant she is not, those on the other are adamant she is. This remains a  subject where any rational debate is difficult to say the least, way too much emotion involved.
> 
> I don't believe you are putting anyone on ignore it became obvious a while back that you are more interested in getting a rise out of people than anyything else so ignoring them would be self defeating.


I have not responded to anyone on ignore, nor in a single case where the response suggested they had recanted, read their comments. I just ignore posters who use abuse.


----------



## Border Reiver (Apr 2, 2021)

Sue said:


> How many's that now, Border Reiver?


Every poster who responds with abuse rather than debate or discussion. Quite simple.


----------



## Orang Utan (Apr 2, 2021)

Border Reiver said:


> Every poster who responds with abuse rather than debate or discussion. Quite simple.


wally


----------



## Sue (Apr 2, 2021)

Border Reiver said:


> Every poster who responds with abuse rather than debate or discussion. Quite simple.


Or people who challenge your points in ways you don't like, like kabbes, for example.  Quite simple.


----------



## kabbes (Apr 2, 2021)

Border Reiver said:


> Every poster who responds with abuse rather than debate or discussion. Quite simple.


I think this means he’s put himself on ignore?


----------



## A380 (Apr 2, 2021)

Border Reiver said:


> I have not responded to anyone on ignore, nor in a single case where the response suggested they had recanted, read their comments. I just ignore posters who use abuse.


Oh yes you have...


----------



## two sheds (Apr 2, 2021)

Oh no he hasn't ...


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Apr 2, 2021)

Border Reiver said:


> You need to understand hie "proportionate" is interpreted by the courts. Perhaps you cannorovide done by samples from case law on his this deviates from my view. You know, actual cases where people with GRC have been excluded from a female only area.


That parliamentary document states that the absence of case law in this area is precisely why those clarifications were made - to give directions as to how the 2010 Act should be interpreted. Hence them giving theoretical examples. 

tbh you don't appear to understand much about anything here. You're wrong about the legal position, you're wrong about what gender dysphoria is, and your category of 'natural' phenomena doesn't work. I'm sure there's other stuff you've been wrong about that I've missed.


----------



## Gromit (Apr 2, 2021)

two sheds said:


> Oh no he hasn't ...


He’s behind you!


----------



## Border Reiver (Apr 2, 2021)

littlebabyjesus said:


> That parliamentary document states that the absence of case law in this area is precisely why those clarifications were made - to give directions as to how the 2010 Act should be interpreted. Hence them giving theoretical examples.
> 
> tbh you don't appear to understand much about anything here. You're wrong about the legal position, you're wrong about what gender dysphoria is, and your category of 'natural' phenomena doesn't work. I'm sure there's other stuff you've been wrong about that I've missed.



That must be explained by the fact that I am a retired Mental Health Clinician and Manager with three decades experience and a degree in Psychology; or you could be wrong.


----------



## A380 (Apr 2, 2021)

Border Reiver said:


> That must be explained by the fact that I am a retired Mental Health Clinician and In Manager with three decades experience and a degree in Psychology; or you could be wrong.


No you aren’t.


----------



## A380 (Apr 2, 2021)

Border Reiver said:


> Every poster who responds with abuse rather than debate or discussion. Quite simple.


----------



## Mr.Bishie (Apr 2, 2021)

Fuck this thread off to the shit bin.


----------



## kabbes (Apr 2, 2021)

Border Reiver said:


> That must be explained by the fact that I am a retired Mental Health Clinician and Manager with three decades experience and a degree in Psychology; or you could be wrong.


A degree in psychology obtained a very, very, very, very, very, very long time ago, by any chance?


----------



## Gromit (Apr 2, 2021)




----------



## smokedout (Apr 2, 2021)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Not sure what country you're referring to here. In Canada, the action of the refuge has been judged legal by a court.
> 
> Here in the UK, there has been clarification about the way the 2010 Act should be interpreted. Parliament has clarified to make certain exceptions more explicit.



Parliament has not clarified anything.  The link you posted is from a report by the Women and Equalities Commisson.  Parliament doesn't just get to rewrite acts on the hoof, the act is as it is written and for the courts to interpret unless new legislation is brought before Parliament. As the Government explained in their response to the WEC report


> As set out in response to recommendation 14, the Government is planning to develop and publish non-statutory guidance on how the Equality Act 2010’s single and separate sex service exemptions apply. There are limitations to what could be achieved through statutory guidance as there is no case law in this space that moves beyond interpretation of the original legislation, so it would not be possible to set out ‘rules’ for the application of exemptions: statutory guidance must reflect existing law, it is not a means of establishing new law.



That guidance has not been developed yet and the key words are non-statutory. The act is as it stands, and it does contain guidance in the original explanatory notes about a counselling servce, but not a refuge and even then this would be open to interpretation by the courts - what was the nature of the discrimination, could the service have been delivered differently etc.  It is very likely refuges would be covered by the exemption and it would give some protection in court were the EHRC to issue guidance advising this, however they have yet to do so and even when they do the guidance is purely advisory and can be over-ruled by the courts.


> There's lots to be argued over here, but a lot of what you're saying on this thread simply isn't true.



Oh the irony.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Apr 2, 2021)

That's not so different from what I said, you know. They're providing guidance in the absence of established case law. My bad for saying 'parliament' there.


----------



## smokedout (Apr 3, 2021)

littlebabyjesus said:


> That's not so different from what I said, you know. They're providing guidance in the absence of established case law. My bad for saying 'parliament' there.



The WEC can provide as much guidance as they want, it makes no difference to the law, they are a parliamentary committee, they don't write or issue guidance on the law they scrutinise policy and issue recommendations which governments are free to ignore. But they aren't even claiming to provide guidance, they are quoting from the original explanatory notes that were published with the Equality Act. In fact if you read it in context they are asking for guidance, and I quoted the Government's response to that request.

You seem unclear about how parliament and the courts interact to produce law, perhaps you are not best placed to set yourself up as an expert on this subject.


----------



## AmateurAgitator (Apr 3, 2021)

Border Reiver said:


> That must be explained by the fact that I am a retired Mental Health Clinician and Manager with three decades experience and a degree in Psychology; or you could be wrong.


You silly plonker


----------



## AmateurAgitator (Apr 3, 2021)

Border Reiver said:


> You need to understand hie "proportionate" is interpreted by the courts. Perhaps you cannorovide done by samples from case law on his this deviates from my view. You know, actual cases where people with GRC have been excluded from a female only area.


You are very much a nitwit


----------



## Spanner (Apr 3, 2021)

Count Cuckula said:


> You silly plonker


..


----------



## A380 (Apr 3, 2021)

Spanner said:


> ..


Two good points.


----------



## A380 (Apr 3, 2021)

Mr.Bishie said:


> Fuck this thread off to the shit bin.


Yes, in my opinion started in bad faith, seeming to me to try to stir up trouble and has become quite the hang out for ‘dubious types’ . Can’t see any reason to keep it going.


----------



## Border Reiver (Apr 3, 2021)

Count Cuckula said:


> You are very much a nitwit


Abuse is not debate. Just childish time wasting illustrating inability to defend a point of view. Once more and you are on ignore.


----------



## Border Reiver (Apr 3, 2021)

smokedout said:


> Parliament has not clarified anything.  The link you posted is from a report by the Women and Equalities Commisson.  Parliament doesn't just get to rewrite acts on the hoof, the act is as it is written and for the courts to interpret unless new legislation is brought before Parliament. As the Government explained in their response to the WEC report
> 
> 
> That guidance has not been developed yet and the key words are non-statutory. The act is as it stands, and it does contain guidance in the original explanatory notes about a counselling servce, but not a refuge and even then this would be open to interpretation by the courts - what was the nature of the discrimination, could the service have been delivered differently etc.  It is very likely refuges would be covered by the exemption and it would give some protection in court were the EHRC to issue guidance advising this, however they have yet to do so and even when they do the guidance is purely advisory and can be over-ruled by the courts.
> ...



Important fact is that there is no case law yet on this. Decisions on s duality, race and gender suggests that exceptions will be very very rare.

At some point we will get cases like "gay couple in a B&B" and "gay wedding cake". Nothing is going to stop persons with a GRC accessing women only spaces.


----------



## Athos (Apr 3, 2021)

Border Reiver said:


> Nothing is going to stop persons with a GRC accessing women only spaces.



Whilst there is a lack of case law, I'm not sure how you can assert this; on the face of it, such exclusion is permitted (in principle, albeit in very limited circumstances) by the act itself, and the statutory guidance issued by the EHRC.  (And seems to be envisaged in the explanatory notes to the Act, and expert legal opinion on its interpretation.)

Also, you're going off script, because lots of advocates for the proposed changes to the GRA insisted to women that GRCs are irrelevant to the application of the Equality Act!


----------



## A380 (Apr 3, 2021)

Athos said:


> Whilst there is a lack of case law, I'm not sure how you can assert this; on the face of it, such exclusion is permitted (in principle, albeit in very limited circumstances) by the act itself, and the statutory guidance issued by the EHRC.  (And seems to be envisaged in the explanatory notes to the Act, and expert legal opinion on its interpretation.)
> 
> Also, you're going off script, because lots of advocates for the proposed changes to the GRA insisted to women that GRCs are irrelevant to the application of the Equality Act!


3 gets you 5 you get ‘ignored’ next. Done?


----------



## Knotted (Apr 3, 2021)

I’ve bee thinking about the social basis of gender critical feminism. I don’t necessarily have an answer as to why it is particularly prevalent in the UK, but in my mind it is part of a general fragmentation of the way interests are expressed in the modern world (or at least modern Britain).

I don’t take the view that it is simply a product of second wave radical feminism, although that’s the language it expresses itself in, it simply isn’t radical, it often isn’t gender critical and sometimes is hardly feminism of any form. Besides I don’t feel ideas are best understood as a history of ideas, ideas relate to the material world. So best look at that.

Contemporary Britain is acutely post-industrial, with employment largely focused on social reproduction rather than the production of widgets. Services/care/admin/sales etc. This is a simplistic view perhaps, but the upshot of this broad tendency is that the modern British working class is more socialised but more poorly organised than it used to be. So especially among the young there is a common sense anti-racism, anti-sexism, anti-homophobia and an anti-transphobia etc. But it’s often expressed in a fragmented, “me first” way. Even the backlash is in identity terms such as “what about the white working class?”. And I think there is a dark underbelly to this extra socialised existence in terms of the alt right but also in terms of the alt left (think Canary/Squawkbox). That social media encourages people to converse in self enclosed bubbles only aids the fragmentation. So when the new class relations expressed themselves in the Corbyn moment, they came with some unsavoury baggage. Social solidarity comes with a helping of social fear.

So whereas attitudes are more liberal than they used to be, they’ve also grown more conspiratorial and the old Daily Mail style fear mongering is back with a vengeance in new left wing clothes.


----------



## Knotted (Apr 3, 2021)

As smokeout has pointed out the gender critical feminists take largely hypothetical problems and imagine a conspiracy to implement the worst possible case scenarios no matter how absurd. Eg. the idea that if a therapist questions a young person’s desire to transition there is a danger of being accused of “conversion therapy” and banned. Or eg. a transgender person expressing themselves in “gender essentialist” (see here for a succinct definition h/t hitmouse) terms is not to be carefully criticised but is to be held to be an enforcer of gender roles and stereotypes. [Besides what if it turns out that gender is a real thing and there are eg. male and female brains? Whereas I don’t think this is at all likely to happen, I don’t think feminism would collapse if it did. Structural/social theories can survive biological nuance.] Transgender people become transgender activists who then become transgenderists who then become “self-identity theorists” or “essentialists” or some other dangerous ideologue. In this scheme transgender people’s very existence is explained in terms of their supposed ideology and is thus open to questioning and even attack.

And there is the disingenuity of the gender critical feminists. Who exactly isn’t gender critical? Even transgender gender essentialists aren’t usually interested in shielding traditional/patriarchal concepts of gender from criticism. To mix a metaphor, this is what I might call hiding behind an open door. What is presented first and foremost is agreeable, even uncontroversial (“I believe in biological reality”!) in the pretence that the supposed opposition are against these reasonable ideas, all the while concealing the fear, the conspiracies and the obsessions. Butter-wouldn’t-melt-in-my-mouth provocation.

There is also a parental/moral panic aspect to gender critical feminism. Burdened with the lonely task of child rearing and trying to respond to various often conservative pressures to raise your child “properly”, talk of the trans agenda trying to convert gender nonconforming children is classic Daily Mail fear mongering. Many parents may fall for this, and some mums might find a quasi-feminist expressing of these concerns more palatable. Not that dad is likely to be any better.


----------



## Knotted (Apr 3, 2021)

The real opposition to gender criticism comes from the conservative right. And yet there is a fixation on the trans right movement. I believe this is a modern phenomenon. An old trans exclusionary radical feminist like Germaine Greer, rarely talks about the subject. But now for many it is an obsession. Referring back to the concept of fragmented solidarity I introduced above, I think this is to do with opinion bubbles on eg. social media which then become the form of expression for political interests. It may or may not be driven by visceral fear and hatred of trans people, but here political interest is expressed in terms of total neglect of other competing/parallel interests and going for the easiest target reaps the biggest psychological rewards. Why take on the whole patriarchy, when you can take on trans teenagers on tumblr? Fuck them, they aren’t real women.

But as smokedout has repeatedly pointed out, this movement is far more harmful than some shit posting on Twitter. That some ally themselves with the conservative right who in turn are successful in rolling back trans gains, shows that it’s something that needs to be taken very seriously. There are other problems on the left with respect to anti-semitism and anti-grt sentiment for example, but this may be the worst one in terms of real world consequences. This concrete political reality, that smokeout draws our attention to again and again is something that keeps getting ignored on here. I find myself guilty of not focusing on it. This is not just clean up operation for the left as with the anti-semitism issue, it’s part of an immediate struggle over policy. This is where the rhetoric about the “tra’s” being just as bad or worse falls flat. There is a real insight into pointing out that transwomen were socialised as boys/men and may well retain sexist attitudes. It’s also perfectly correct to say that many trans gendered people (activists or not) are likely to find themselves trapped in their own ideological bubbles. Some may be fixated on terfs where the more prominent threat is from the conservative right. Some might be badly behaved on Twitter. But non of them are in it to roll back women’s gains.

Look at treefrog’s last words to urban.

“You’ve embraced an ideology that places me in actual danger.” That’s not a, “I find what you are saying offensive”, or a “I don’t want to hear about women’s changing rooms.” Treefrog recognised the (often coded) ideological language of a movement pushing for real immediate harm. Don’t blame the thread or the heated arguments. Blame the transphobia.

“You’ve embraced an ideology that places me in actual danger.”


----------



## Knotted (Apr 3, 2021)

co-op has fallen down this rabbit hole. (I think it's more complex with other posters.) But this thread was all about trying to get urban to accept gender critical ideology.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Apr 3, 2021)

Both 'sides' in this have gone wrong imo. Where you end up sharing a platform with conservative Christians like Tory MP David Davies, you've gone wrong somewhere. When you end up labelling Keira Bell a bigot or supporting those who want to force the Vancouver Rape Shelter to either accept trans women into its ranks or close down, you've gone wrong somewhere.

Ultimately, this battle of ideologies can only be resolved when both sides accept that others do not think like them, agree to disagree and agree to try to find a way to coexist where the ideologies come into conflict. When accepting disagreement, you actually reach a form of agreement within the larger totality, because you are recognising the position of the other side and recognising a plurality of points of view. That's the only way I see out of this mess.

Like bimble, these threads aren't much good for me. I'll dob out there.


----------



## Funky_monks (Apr 3, 2021)

19force8 said:


> There's a scientific, philosophical and mathematical debate about natural sets. I don't understand it, but that's not really what's being talked about here, which is the idea that there's a natural order to things and when we choose to put them into groups it isn't just a whim, it's their proper place in "nature."
> 
> The problem is that nature isn't just black and white, there are shades of grey and exceptions.
> 
> ...



No.

I'm a biologist, therefore I deal with sex. Gender is for the sociologists.
there exist X, Y, Z and W chromosomes.
Birds tend to have Z and W, but I did read about one that has Y, Z and W and males could either be ZY or ZW.
Other species exist in a "sex complex" where chromosomes are polymorphic but do not differentiate as much as x and Y or Z and W.

Also, there are many species that can change sex either naturally or who readily respond to hormonal changes in the environment to undergo this change - fish are good examples of this.

Hormones are incredibly powerful chemicals that can cause physical and psychological changes, therefore it is entirely possible that perfectly naturally occuring differences in hormonal production can cause someone to feel, perfectly validly that they are not of the sex that they were born, especially if upping the levels of those hormones artificially cause their body to physically morph into that sex.


----------



## 19force8 (Apr 3, 2021)

Funky_monks said:


> No.





No, there's no debate about natural sets?
No, nature is black and white with no shades of grey?
No, there are no men with XX chromosomes or women with XY?
No, the world isn't more complex than bmd was taught?


----------



## Funky_monks (Apr 3, 2021)

19force8 said:


> No, there's no debate about natural sets?
> No, nature is black and white with no shades of grey?
> No, there are no men with XX chromosomes or women with XY?
> No, the world isn't more complex than bmd was taught?



No, there isn't a natural order to things and we can't always put things into arbitary categories. I'm agreeing with you.


----------



## smokedout (Apr 3, 2021)

littlebabyjesus said:


> When you end up labelling Keira Bell a bigot



Do you think Posies Parker is a transphobe?  And if so what about those who wholeheartedly support her?


----------



## smokedout (Apr 3, 2021)

If the balance you, or anyone, wants in this debate is that we should just accept Posie Parker whipping up armed MAGA types against trans women, and that it is outrageous to call  anyone who leapt to her defence after that, as Keira did, a bigot, then fuck that.  One man who was sharing Posie's stuff on facebook has already been convicted of trying to burn down a trans women'a home.  If you think there is room for reasonable compromise with the more extreme ends of the GC movement, of which Keira is part, then either you are ignorant of what is actually going on or you're a fucking transphobe yourself.


----------



## Orang Utan (Apr 3, 2021)

Fucking hell, she's turned. Loved her in Best In Show


----------



## Edie (Apr 3, 2021)

Who the fuck is Posie Parker. Does anyone actually know? All these names keep getting mentioned but they are mythical people in the twittersphere. No one outside that has ever fucking heard of them


----------



## Orang Utan (Apr 3, 2021)

Edie said:


> Who the fuck is Posie Parker. Does anyone actually know? All these names keep getting mentioned but they are mythical people in the twittersphere. No one outside that has ever fucking heard of them


An actor


----------



## Edie (Apr 3, 2021)

Orang Utan said:


> An actor


Oh. Never heard of her. And she’s said some anti trans stuff on Twitter I take it. My point is that no one outside of that weird Twitter single issue compression zone has ever fucking heard of her. Why is she even mentioned _repeatedly_ on this thread?  Who cares?


----------



## kabbes (Apr 3, 2021)

Edie said:


> Oh. Never heard of her. And she’s said some anti trans stuff on Twitter I take it. My point is that no one outside of that weird Twitter single issue compression zone has ever fucking heard of her. Why is she even mentioned _repeatedly_ on this thread?  Who cares?


I think it’s because people who use Twitter think that what people say on Twitter matters.  Meanwhile, the 95% of people on Earth that are not regular users of Twitter don’t have the first clue what the 1% who care about this topic out of the 5% who use Twitter are talking about.


----------



## Edie (Apr 3, 2021)

kabbes said:


> I think it’s because people who use Twitter think that what people say on Twitter matters.  Meanwhile, the 95% of people on Earth that are not regular users of Twitter don’t have the first clue what the 1% who care about this topic out of the 5% who use Twitter are talking about.


That must be it. On the outside though it appears insane.


----------



## Orang Utan (Apr 3, 2021)

hang on, just googled her and she's not who I thought she was. Parker Posey is the actor. 
This is Posie Parker:








						‘Gender critical feminist’ Posie Parker wants men with guns to start using women’s toilets
					

Posie Parker, a so-called 'gender critical feminist', has suggested armed men use women's public bathrooms to 'protect' them.




					www.pinknews.co.uk


----------



## Edie (Apr 3, 2021)

Orang Utan said:


> hang on, just googled her and she's not who I thought she was. Parker Posey is the actor.
> This is Posie Parker:
> 
> 
> ...


Ok. Well just from that headline, she sounds like a radical nut job. I mean I’ve not even read the article, but I’m pretty confident in saying that littlebabyjesus is very unlikely to support her or those that do. This debate would be much better if the nut job fringes were just ignored. Of course armed men should not protect women in public toilets that’s FUCKING NUTS. Can we discuss something real please.


----------



## Funky_monks (Apr 3, 2021)

Edie said:


> Ok. Well just from that headline, she sounds like a radical nut job. I mean I’ve not even read the article, but I’m pretty confident in saying that littlebabyjesus is very unlikely to support her or those that do. This debate would be much better if the nut job fringes were just ignored. Of course armed men should not protect women in public toilets that’s FUCKING NUTS. Can we discuss something real please.


If she's British, she's a fucking fantasist as well, I mean, who the fuck is going around with random firearms (I say this as someone who has had a FAC)?


----------



## smokedout (Apr 3, 2021)

Edie said:


> Oh. Never heard of her. And she’s said some anti trans stuff on Twitter I take it. My point is that no one outside of that weird Twitter single issue compression zone has ever fucking heard of her. Why is she even mentioned _repeatedly_ on this thread?  Who cares?



She's done a bit more than just say some anti-trans stuff on twitter, but really it's what she represents which is important.  

You might not care though, it's not your healthcare under threat, there aren't thousands of people on twitter claiming you're a groomer or part of some vast paedophile plot.  There aren't 'respectable' people working alongside the far right in some cases to stir up hatred against you.  You probably aren't on the end of daily smears and slurs from the right wing press or the subject of an incessant national debate.  Posie Parker is emblematic of the extremes of that debate, and yet it is apparantly outrageous that some trans people think those who support her might be a bigot - which is why I've laboured the point.  I'm interested what the beardstrokers on this thread think is a reasonable position for trans people to hold in the face of this.


----------



## smokedout (Apr 3, 2021)

Funky_monks said:


> If she's British, she's a fucking fantasist as well, I mean, who the fuck is going around with random firearms (I say this as someone who has had a FAC)?



Her following is largely MAGA types and she's working with WOLF and the ADF in the US on the various bills being introduced to ban trans healthcare or end trans inclusive policies.


----------



## smokedout (Apr 3, 2021)

Edie said:


> Ok. Well just from that headline, she sounds like a radical nut job. I mean I’ve not even read the article, but I’m pretty confident in saying that littlebabyjesus is very unlikely to support her or those that do. This debate would be much better if the nut job fringes were just ignored. Of course armed men should not protect women in public toilets that’s FUCKING NUTS. Can we discuss something real please.



I agree, she's pretty out there, and it would be great if we could just ignore her.  But after making those comments and being criticised for it Keira Bell, who has said Posie was her biggest influence, leapt to her defence.  And anyone who suggests Bell might be a bigot because of that is outrageous according to littlebabyjesus 

Do you see how this stuff filters down?  And why it might be a concern when it starts to draw people in like that?


----------



## hitmouse (Apr 3, 2021)

Edie said:


> Ok. Well just from that headline, she sounds like a radical nut job. I mean I’ve not even read the article, but I’m pretty confident in saying that littlebabyjesus is very unlikely to support her or those that do. This debate would be much better if the nut job fringes were just ignored. Of course armed men should not protect women in public toilets that’s FUCKING NUTS. Can we discuss something real please.


I think the relevant bit is this:


> Keira Bell, who won a landmark judicial review against the NHS prescribing puberty blockers to trans teens, defended Parker, calling for people to “leave this woman alone”.
> 
> “She has done more for the greater good than a lot of people,” Bell tweeted.


Now, littlebabyjesus may or may not be a fan of Parker herself, but lbj does seem to think that it's wrong for people to criticise Bell:


> When you end up labelling Keira Bell a bigot... you've gone wrong somewhere.


So she may be an objectionable weirdo, but she's an objectionable weirdo who some people think is worth defending.

(oops, crossposted there)


----------



## Edie (Apr 3, 2021)

smokedout said:


> I agree, she's pretty out there, and it would be great if we could just ignore her.  But after making those comments and being criticised for it Keira Bell, who has said Posie was her biggest influence, leapt to her defence.  And anyone who suggests Bell might be a bigot because of that is outrageous according to littlebabyjesus
> 
> Do you see how this stuff filters down?  And why it might be a concern when it starts to draw people in like that?


Who is Keira Bell?


----------



## Orang Utan (Apr 3, 2021)

Edie said:


> Who is Keira Bell?


ffs Edie - i thought you were interested in this


----------



## smokedout (Apr 3, 2021)

Edie said:


> Who is Keira Bell?



Keira Bell is the detransitioner who went to court to try and prevent children and young people from having access to trans healthcare and had some success, although that's now been largely overturned - although the threat to Gillick competence is still very real. Last week her legal team, led by a notorious barrister from the religious right, attempted to intervene in a court case to prevent a young trans person being proscribed blockers that they, their parents and their doctors all supported.  Thankfully the court told them to fuck off.  These aren't just people on twitter.


----------



## Spanner (Apr 4, 2021)

A380 said:


> Two good points.





smokedout said:


> ...detransitioner...



what is a “detransitioner”?

Someone who wants to reverse their transition? 

Could someone confirm please?


----------



## Orang Utan (Apr 4, 2021)

Spanner said:


> what is a “detransitioner”?
> 
> Someone who wants to reverse their transition?
> 
> Could someone confirm please?


could Spanner please Google it and find out?


----------



## Spanner (Apr 4, 2021)

Orang Utan said:


> could Spanner please Google it and find out?


Sure I could. But I’m more interested in your definition.


----------



## Orang Utan (Apr 4, 2021)

Spanner said:


> Sure I could. But I’m more interested in your definition.


why? i'm no authority


----------



## Spanner (Apr 4, 2021)

Orang Utan said:


> why? i'm no authority


You were quick enough to answer my questions.


----------



## Orang Utan (Apr 4, 2021)

Spanner said:


> You were quick enough to answer my questions.


yes i was. have you had a look?


----------



## Spanner (Apr 4, 2021)

Orang Utan said:


> yes i was. have you had a look?


At what? Your answers, or Google?  
Neither


----------



## Orang Utan (Apr 4, 2021)

Spanner said:


> At what? Your answers, or Google?
> Neither


Google


----------



## Spanner (Apr 4, 2021)

Blimey


----------



## krtek a houby (Apr 4, 2021)

smokedout said:


> Keira Bell is the detransitioner who went to court to try and prevent children and young people from having access to trans healthcare and had some success, although that's now been largely overturned - although the threat to Gillick competence is still very real. Last week her legal team, led by a notorious barrister from the religious right, attempted to intervene in a court case to prevent a young trans person being proscribed blockers that they, their parents and their doctors all supported.  Thankfully the court told them to fuck off.  These aren't just people on twitter.



A quick and heartfelt thanks to smokedout for having the time and patience to reply to the posts here, some of them which could be seen as coming across as lazy and/or disingenuous.


----------



## Raheem (Apr 4, 2021)

Spanner said:


> Blimey


Tell you what, I'll do you a swap. I'm happy to Google "detransitioning" for you. But I'm still unclear what "sealioning" is, so could you Google that for me?


----------



## 8ball (Apr 4, 2021)

.


----------



## Edie (Apr 4, 2021)

smokedout said:


> Keira Bell is the detransitioner who went to court to try and prevent children and young people from having access to trans healthcare and had some success, although that's now been largely overturned - although the threat to Gillick competence is still very real. Last week her legal team, led by a notorious barrister from the religious right, attempted to intervene in a court case to prevent a young trans person being proscribed blockers that they, their parents and their doctors all supported.  Thankfully the court told them to fuck off.  These aren't just people on twitter.


Ah apologies. Cross posted with hitmouse who explained the link.

So from @hitmouse’s article, it seems as if the judicial review has ruled that doctors should not be allowed to prescribe puberty blockers to under 16yo unless court approved. And this is a result of people like Keira Bell who have had treatment which they later regret. (Presumably treatment such as surgery which is irreversible or hormonal treatment that may cause infertility).

To be honest, that sounds sensible to me. As a mum to lads exactly this age I don’t think they would have capacity. Even for a young adult it is a very very complex decision, balancing shorter gains with longer term significant risk of harm. To think an 11 year old could do that is...


----------



## bmd (Apr 4, 2021)

Edie said:


> Ah apologies. Cross posted with hitmouse who explained the link.
> 
> So from @hitmouse’s article, it seems as if the judicial review has ruled that doctors should not be allowed to prescribe puberty blockers to under 16yo unless court approved. And this is a result of people like Keira Bell who have had treatment which they later regret. (Presumably treatment such as surgery which is irreversible or hormonal treatment that may cause infertility).
> 
> To be honest, that sounds sensible to me. As a mum to lads exactly this age I don’t think they would have capacity. Even for a young adult it is a very very complex decision, balancing shorter gains with longer term significant risk of harm. To think an 11 year old could do that is...



I find it mind-boggling that any sane person even sets foot down the shall-we-give-irreversible-surgery-to-a-vulnerable-person road. How is this even up for debate? And yes, I do mean up for debate. To have even considered it, never mind to have actually carried it out, is unreal.


----------



## hitmouse (Apr 4, 2021)

Raheem said:


> Tell you what, I'll do you a swap. I'm happy to Google "detransitioning" for you. But I'm still unclear what "sealioning" is, so could you Google that for me?


The term sealioning comes from/refers to this comic:


----------



## Athos (Apr 4, 2021)

bmd said:


> I find it mind-boggling that any sane person even sets foot down the shall-we-give-irreversible-surgery-to-a-vulnerable-person road. How is this even up for debate? And yes, I do mean up for debate. To have even considered it, never mind to have actually carried it out, is unreal.



Why?  Vulnerable people have surgery all the time. If a kid had a tumour in his foot nobody would seriously argue with doctors who said it should be amputated to prevent the cancer spreading.

Of course it's a difficult issue, but nowhere near as clear-cut as you're making out.


----------



## Border Reiver (Apr 4, 2021)

19force8 said:


> No, there's no debate about natural sets?
> No, nature is black and white with no shades of grey?
> No, there are no men with XX chromosomes or women with XY?
> No, the world isn't more complex than bmd was taught?


There are males with more than one X or Y chromosome. There are no females with a Y chromosome. The indicator of sex is the presence or absence of a Y chromosome.


----------



## Athos (Apr 4, 2021)

Edie said:


> Ah apologies. Cross posted with hitmouse who explained the link.
> 
> So from @hitmouse’s article, it seems as if the judicial review has ruled that doctors should not be allowed to prescribe puberty blockers to under 16yo unless court approved. And this is a result of people like Keira Bell who have had treatment which they later regret. (Presumably treatment such as surgery which is irreversible or hormonal treatment that may cause infertility).
> 
> To be honest, that sounds sensible to me. As a mum to lads exactly this age I don’t think they would have capacity. Even for a young adult it is a very very complex decision, balancing shorter gains with longer term significant risk of harm. To think an 11 year old could do that is...



I share some reservations around irreversible medical intervention (albeit the medical evidence is increasingly pointing towards its efficacy), but there's a big issue at stake: competence.  That the decision under appeal has undermined the _Gillick_ test (that's worked well for some time), which doesn't seem desirable.  I'm fairly sure the appeal will succeed (as it should).


----------



## bmd (Apr 4, 2021)

Athos, I know this is probably missing the point of you on here but I'll say it anyway and then at least I know I've said it. I don't put people on actual ignore because even a broken clock is right twice a day. However, I don't read your posts any more, not even the latest one you've written in response to mine.


----------



## Athos (Apr 4, 2021)

bmd said:


> Athos, I know this is probably missing the point of you on here but I'll say it anyway and then at least I know I've said it. I don't put people on actual ignore because even a broken clock is right twice a day. However, I don't read your posts any more, not even the latest one you've written in response to mine.



I don't belive you, but, whatever; read mine or don't - either way, it won't stop me commenting on yours.


----------



## Edie (Apr 4, 2021)

Athos said:


> Why?  Vulnerable people have surgery all the time. If a kid had a tumour in his foot nobody would seriously argue with doctors who said it should be amputated to prevent the cancer spreading.
> 
> Of course it's a difficult issue, but nowhere near as clear-cut as you're making out.


One fairly significant difference is that children are very unlikely to grow into adults who strongly feel their cancer should not have been surgically treated to save their life. But because gender dysphoria is a psychological condition, some people are going to regret having treatment as children and young adults that later affects their bodies or health or fertility. So, primum non nocere.


----------



## Border Reiver (Apr 4, 2021)

It is more complicated than that. The original case found that children could not consent alone and queried whether even parents could consent. This overturned the Gillick case which allows all children to decide on health issues if competent. The Gillick case was on provision of contraception against parental advice but was applied to all care. The question of parental consent was heard in a second case which found that parents can consent. The ruling on child consent is under appeal. The judgement does not affect current self consented prescriptions (of which there are very few without parental agreement). I would be surprised if the judgement is not overturned on appeal.


----------



## baldrick (Apr 4, 2021)

smokedout said:


> Keira Bell is the detransitioner who went to court to try and prevent children and young people from having access to trans healthcare and had some success, although that's now been largely overturned - although the threat to Gillick competence is still very real. Last week her legal team, led by a notorious barrister from the religious right, attempted to intervene in a court case to prevent a young trans person being proscribed blockers that they, their parents and their doctors all supported.  Thankfully the court told them to fuck off.  These aren't just people on twitter.


What effect will the recent report from NICE have that says the evidence for efficacy is very low in terms of improvements to mental health? For both blockers and cross sex hormones. It doesn't seem the recent furore on effects on bone density has been resolved either way also.

It seems like the studies done so far are not conclusive. When you're talking about medications that affect healthy tissue, for psychological reasons, I think the benefits have to be conclusive don't they? I'm not saying that if proper studies are done that won't be the case but I don't understand how we are at the stage of giving young people treatments that aren't proven to help. That just seems utterly crazy to me.


----------



## Border Reiver (Apr 4, 2021)

bmd said:


> I find it mind-boggling that any sane person even sets foot down the shall-we-give-irreversible-surgery-to-a-vulnerable-person road. How is this even up for debate? And yes, I do mean up for debate. To have even considered it, never mind to have actually carried it out, is unreal.


It is not surgery. It is prescription of medicine. Surgery for gender change is illegal under 16 years of age in the UK.


----------



## 19force8 (Apr 4, 2021)

Border Reiver said:


> There are makes with more than one X or Y chromosome. There are no females with a Y chromosome. The indicator of sex is the presence or absence of a Y chromosome.


Wrong.

See Swyer syndrome:









						XY gonadal dysgenesis - Wikipedia
					






					en.wikipedia.org


----------



## Border Reiver (Apr 4, 2021)

baldrick said:


> What effect will the recent report from NICE have that says the evidence for efficacy is very low in terms of improvements to mental health? For both blockers and cross sex hormones. It doesn't seem the recent furore on effects on bone density has been resolved either way also.
> 
> It seems like the studies done so far are not conclusive. When you're talking about medications that affect healthy tissue, for psychological reasons, I think the benefits have to be conclusive don't they? I'm not saying that if proper studies are done that won't be the case but I don't understand how we are at the stage of giving young people treatments that aren't proven to help. That just seems utterly crazy to me.



The court did not and cannot consider efficacy. It is merely considering consent. Consent by parents has been confirmed as lawful so the only question now is child alone consent which is very rare.


----------



## A380 (Apr 4, 2021)

hitmouse said:


> The term sealioning comes from/refers to this comic:
> 
> View attachment 261656


Thanks, I’ve learned something new today and I haven’t even got up yet.


----------



## Border Reiver (Apr 4, 2021)

19force8 said:


> Wrong.
> 
> See Swyer syndrome:
> 
> ...


Sorry. Forgot the exception that proves the rule.😃


----------



## bmd (Apr 4, 2021)

Border Reiver said:


> It is not surgery. It is prescription of medicine. Surgery for gender change is illegal under 16 years of age in the UK.



I'm not in favour of that either but at least it isn't irreversible. With this, I am not making a judgement on the reason why these children wish to do these things btw.


----------



## Athos (Apr 4, 2021)

Edie said:


> One fairly significant difference is that children are very unlikely to grow into adults who strongly feel their cancer should not have been surgically treated to save their life. But because gender dysphoria is a psychological condition, some people are going to regret having treatment as children and young adults that later affects their bodies or health or fertility. So, primum non nocere.



That may be true. And many might be negatively affected by being denied that treatment. There's no easy answer. My point was that it's not as clear as bmd was making out.


----------



## Border Reiver (Apr 4, 2021)

Edie said:


> One fairly significant difference is that children are very unlikely to grow into adults who strongly feel their cancer should not have been surgically treated to save their life. But because gender dysphoria is a psychological condition, some people are going to regret having treatment as children and young adults that later affects their bodies or health or fertility. So, primum non nocere.


Medicine does not treat that as an absolute. Current medical ethics require that appropriate risks be taken for the probable benefit of the patient. 

The court is not considering that. The only consideration is child consent.


----------



## bimble (Apr 4, 2021)

baldrick said:


> What effect will the recent report from NICE have that says the evidence for efficacy is very low in terms of improvements to mental health? For both blockers and cross sex hormones. .


i wasn't aware of this NICE report existing but here it is, if anyone wants to take a look (click on the blue title for full report as PDF)





__





						Evidence search service closure information
					






					www.evidence.nhs.uk
				




The conclusion seems to be that there is no evidence of these treatments on young people improving mental health or quality of life?
But I am not any good at reading these studies and don't understand the numbers.
(Also i'm not even here anymore obvs)


----------



## 19force8 (Apr 4, 2021)

Edie said:


> Ah apologies. Cross posted with hitmouse who explained the link.
> 
> So from @hitmouse’s article, it seems as if the judicial review has ruled that doctors should not be allowed to prescribe puberty blockers to under 16yo unless court approved. And this is a result of people like Keira Bell who have had treatment which they later regret. (Presumably treatment such as surgery which is irreversible or hormonal treatment that may cause infertility).
> 
> To be honest, that sounds sensible to me. As a mum to lads exactly this age I don’t think they would have capacity. Even for a young adult it is a very very complex decision, balancing shorter gains with longer term significant risk of harm. To think an 11 year old could do that is...


Most prescriptions of puberty blockers to children are to delay precocious puberty. So it was a very unhelpful ruling which has now been largely overturned. There has been no suggestion of surgery for under 16s.

There is a lot of misinformation about detransistioning. It's not at all common, studies show that only around 1% of trans people detransition, almost all pre-surgery, mostly MtF and many cite social pressures as the main reason. Indeed, of those who do detransition, some will go on to transition fully at a later date. In fact the statistics for satisfaction/regret following gender affirming surgery are much better than for other elective procedures.

Thinking back to when my lads were 16 I don't know whether they had the capacity to make such decisions at that age, but I suspect that's largely because they didn't need to. If either of them had had gender dysphoria I hope I'd have been able to give them the support they needed.


----------



## Edie (Apr 4, 2021)

19force8 said:


> Most prescriptions of puberty blockers to children are to delay precocious puberty. So it was a very unhelpful ruling which has now been largely overturned. There has been no suggestion of surgery for under 16s.
> 
> There is a lot of misinformation about detransistioning. It's not at all common, studies show that only around 1% of trans people detransition, almost all pre-surgery, mostly MtF and many cite social pressures as the main reason. Indeed, of those who do detransition, some will go on to transition fully at a later date. In fact the statistics for satisfaction/regret following gender affirming surgery are much better than for other elective procedures.
> 
> Thinking back to when my lads were 16 I don't know whether they had the capacity to make such decisions at that age, but I suspect that's largely because they didn't need to. If either of them had had gender dysphoria I hope I'd have been able to give them the support they needed.


There is a lot of neuroscience about synaptic pruning and the development of the pre frontal cortex, that shows adolescents cannot weigh up decisions and risks as adults do. I only need to observe the thought patterns/arguments/decisions of my sons to see that evidence. Children need to be supported to explore their feelings and relationships with their bodies and gender. And no active intervention that could constitute harm by the medical community should be considered. To do otherwise is madness- these children as adults will be horrified. Support, understanding, love, counselling, acceptance and _not_ medical intervention.


----------



## mojo pixy (Apr 4, 2021)

bmd said:


> I find it mind-boggling that any sane person even sets foot down the shall-we-give-irreversible-surgery-to-a-vulnerable-person road. How is this even up for debate? And yes, I do mean up for debate. To have even considered it, never mind to have actually carried it out, is unreal.



The thing is (in theory at least, it doesn't 100% work this way but it should) everyone has the right to make unwise** decisions unless someone can show they don't understand what they're deciding (either because they are incapable of processing information about the decision, or are unable to remember it for long enough to process it)

If an adult (because it's not quite the same for minors) can show they _do_ understand the risks of a choice and are able to positively express that choice in their own way, then it's a fundamental human right to make that choice. It's not about 'vulnerability' but about mental capacity, they aren't the same.

** to me, you or someone else.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Apr 4, 2021)

I see I've been tagged a few times despite saying I was leaving this. Not going to respond to whattaboutery, will just make the point again about bad thinking on both sides.

On one side are the theories of Ray Blanchard, which ought to be forgotten in the dustbin of bad ideas but have been revived and are referenced pretty often in this debate, not just on the Twitter fringe. It's quite hard for me to put into words how wrong his ideas are. From reading his stuff directly, it's wrong from the bottom up. It reflects little more than his own prejudices against homosexuality, and contains some frankly absurd ideas about what sexual attraction is and how it develops. It's reductive and wrong, but its particular mention of 'autogynephilia' has been latched onto as a means to an end - the end being to reduce male to female transgenderism to a fetish. These are regressive, reactionary, arbitrary ideas. 

On the other side are the theories of the likes of Mermaids. Again, not fringe ideas as, among other things, Mermaids is an influential lobbying organisation. Its theories are just as arbitrary as Blanchard's, promoting a particular form of a 'gender spectrum' filled with stereotypes onto which people in general, and children in particular, are invited to place themselves. It essentialises gender and dogmatically asserts that affirmation of the child's professed gender identity is the only correct course of action. Indeed, they consider anything else to be tantamount to abuse. These are also regressive and reactionary ideas, and they've found enthusiastic support in certain quarters in the medical profession, for instance with influential US endocrinologist Norman Spack, who advocates medical intervention as young as ten. The certainty with which this narrow, poorly evidenced medical model is promoted reminds me horribly of the certainty with which US doctors toured the country lobotomising thousands of people indiscriminately in the 1950s. 

It depresses me how people on both sides of this debate attach themselves to one or other of these bad ideas because it's 'their side'. Please don't tag me to respond to this.


----------



## Border Reiver (Apr 4, 2021)

Edie said:


> There is a lot of neuroscience about synaptic pruning and the development of the pre frontal cortex, that shows adolescents cannot weigh up decisions and risks as adults do. I only need to observe the thought patterns/arguments/decisions of my sons to see that evidence. Children need to be supported to explore their feelings and relationships with their bodies and gender. And no active intervention that could constitute harm by the medical community should be considered. To do otherwise is madness- these children as adults will be horrified. Support, understanding, love, counselling, acceptance and _not_ medical intervention.



You are certainly entitled to your opinion. But the law differs. Children over seven years of age have been able to consent to any treat.ent they have the capacity to understand according to medical ethics since the Gillick case; parents have always been able to give consent for any medical intervention not specifically forbidden. Medical ethics and law have considered research on maturing of children's ability to consent and have settled on the law as it is currently applied. It is unlikely to change.


----------



## bmd (Apr 4, 2021)

mojo pixy said:


> The thing is (in theory at least, it doesn't 100% work this way but it should) everyone has the right to make unwise** decisions unless someone can show they don't understand what they're deciding (either because they are incapable of processing information about the decision, or are unable to remember it for long enough to process it)
> 
> If an adult (because it's not quite the same for minors) can show they _do_ understand the risks of a choice and are able to positively express that choice in their own way, then it's a fundamental human right to make that choice. It's not about 'vulnerability' but about mental capacity, they aren't the same.
> 
> ** to me, you or someone else.



Yes, sorry I wasn't more clear. What I was talking about was children. I fully support anyone, who is over the age of consent for this kind of thing, making their own decisions about their body. 

Wrt to 'vulnerable' and Trans people, I do think they are vulnerable because of the fact that they see their body as having grown wrongly and therefore the impact that has on their mental health leads to a vulnerability bias towards resolving it.


----------



## Border Reiver (Apr 4, 2021)

mojo pixy said:


> The thing is (in theory at least, it doesn't 100% work this way but it should) everyone has the right to make unwise** decisions unless someone can show they don't understand what they're deciding (either because they are incapable of processing information about the decision, or are unable to remember it for long enough to process it)
> 
> If an adult (because it's not quite the same for minors) can show they _do_ understand the risks of a choice and are able to positively express that choice in their own way, then it's a fundamental human right to make that choice. It's not about 'vulnerability' but about mental capacity, they aren't the same.
> 
> ** to me, you or someone else.


And under Gillick Competence this apllies to children and medical treatment at the level of their understanding .


----------



## Border Reiver (Apr 4, 2021)

19force8 said:


> Most prescriptions of puberty blockers to children are to delay precocious puberty. So it was a very unhelpful ruling which has now been largely overturned. There has been no suggestion of surgery for under 16s.
> 
> There is a lot of misinformation about detransistioning. It's not at all common, studies show that only around 1% of trans people detransition, almost all pre-surgery, mostly MtF and many cite social pressures as the main reason. Indeed, of those who do detransition, some will go on to transition fully at a later date. In fact the statistics for satisfaction/regret following gender affirming surgery are much better than for other elective procedures.
> 
> Thinking back to when my lads were 16 I don't know whether they had the capacity to make such decisions at that age, but I suspect that's largely because they didn't need to. If either of them had had gender dysphoria I hope I'd have been able to give them the support they needed.



With the current case never was the adage "Hard cases make bad law" more apposite. The court basically considered a single case and ignored a majority of other cases.


----------



## A380 (Apr 4, 2021)

Border Reiver said:


> With the current case never was the adage "Hard cases make bad law" more apposite. The court basically considered a single case and ignored a majority of other cases.


No they didn’t. You are as wrong about this as you are about most of the other things you pontificate about.


----------



## Border Reiver (Apr 4, 2021)

A380 said:


> No they didn’t. You are as wrong about this as you are about most of the other things you pontificate about.


Apart from the appellant which other cases were considered? That is one of the grounds of appeal. You do realise that their questioning if the whole issue of prescription of puberty blockers (suggesting even parents cannot consent) has been ruled not to be the case and the only current restriction is on prescription for children against parental consent? I expect a return to Gillick Competence for puberty blockers on appeal.


----------



## A380 (Apr 4, 2021)

Border Reiver said:


> Apart from the appellant which other cases were considered? That is one of the grounds of appeal. You do realise that their questioning if the whole issue of prescription of puberty blockers (suggesting even parents cannot consent) has been ruled not to be the case and the only current restriction is on prescription for children against parental consent? I expect a return to Gillick Competence for puberty blockers on appeal.


You forgot that you ‘had me on ignore’....


----------



## Border Reiver (Apr 4, 2021)

bmd said:


> Yes, sorry I wasn't more clear. What I was talking about was children. I fully support anyone, who is over the age of consent for this kind of thing, making their own decisions about their body.
> 
> Wrt to 'vulnerable' and Trans people, I do think they are vulnerable because of the fact that they see their body as having grown wrongly and therefore the impact that has on their mental health leads to a vulnerability bias towards resolving it.



Psychiatry does not see transgender persons as lacking capacity. Not does the law.


----------



## Border Reiver (Apr 4, 2021)

A380 said:


> You forgot that you ‘had me on ignore’....



I use it to stop abusive posts. Once the person has had a chance to cool down I unignore them. You chose to tag me so you now have a chance to debate without abuse.


----------



## A380 (Apr 4, 2021)

Border Reiver said:


> I use it ire to stop abusive posts. Once the person has had a chance to cool down I unignore them. You chose to tag me so you now have a chance to debate without abuse.


Bollocks. You are a trolling returner or sock puppet and I claim my £5




Border Reiver said:


> I see you are interested in abuse, not debate or a search for truth. Onto ignore.


----------



## bmd (Apr 4, 2021)

Border Reiver said:


> Psychiatry does not see transgender persons as lacking capacity. Not does the law.



I'm not using capacity and vulnerability interchangeably here and also, the law seems to need to catch up or, at least, reflect on it's ability to encompass these issues.


----------



## Border Reiver (Apr 4, 2021)

A380 said:


> Bollocks. You are a trolling returner or sock puppet and I claim my £5


Back on ignore until you show some ability to learn.


----------



## A380 (Apr 4, 2021)

Border Reiver said:


> Back on ignore until you show some ability to learn.


That’s my day ruined then...you know Orangutan’s persona on the ‘jokes’ thread is a joke right?


----------



## Border Reiver (Apr 4, 2021)

bmd said:


> I'm not using capacity and vulnerability interchangeably here and also, the law seems to need to catch up or, at least, reflect on it's ability to encompass these issues.



The law was reviewed relatively recently (in the eighties and nineties) in England and Wales. I was involved in the consultation for capacity and the elderly. It is unlikely to change again as the formulation seems to have worked well.

Psychiatry (via DSM) has removed transgender from a disorder to a normative condtion causing distress as we moved from DSM IV(R) to DSM5. Unlikely to be undone.


----------



## bmd (Apr 4, 2021)

Border Reiver said:


> The law was reviewed relatively recently (in the eighties and nineties) in England and Wales. I was involved in the consultation for capacity and the elderly. It is unlikely to change again as the formulation seems to have worked well.



And now, all I know that I didn't before is that you were involved in a consultation on a law. 

Jolly good.


----------



## two sheds (Apr 4, 2021)

bmd said:


> And now, all I know that I didn't before is that you were involved in a consultation on a law.
> 
> Jolly good.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Apr 4, 2021)

I know I said I was leaving this but I just want to make one measured, nuanced point. 

Fuck the DSM.


----------



## Border Reiver (Apr 4, 2021)

bmd said:


> And now, all I know that I didn't before is that you were involved in a consultation on a law.
> 
> Jolly good.



You also now know the history and that it is unlikely the position will change. These things tend to last a generation of so as they are so complex to legislate.


----------



## Border Reiver (Apr 4, 2021)

littlebabyjesus said:


> I know I said I was leaving this but I just want to make one measured, nuanced point.
> 
> Fuck the DSM.



You can ignore it as you wish. It is widely used in teaching and interpreting mental disorders by psychiatrists and the courts. If you are communicating with people about mental disorders it is widely recognised as a work of definition and reference. I have many reservations about it, but it exists and tends to affect many legal and medical decisions.


----------



## bimble (Apr 4, 2021)

I am of the opinion that its entirely a coincidence that absurd and comical levels of supercilious pomposity quite often seem to coincide with working at highish levels in professional psychiatry. Just the way the cookie crumbles.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Apr 4, 2021)

Border Reiver said:


> You can ignore it as you wish. It is widely used in teaching and interpreting mental disorders by psychiatrists and the courts. If you are communicating with people about mental disorders it is widely recognised as a work of definition and reference. I have many reservations about it, but it exists and tends to affect many legal and medical decisions.


I know what it is.


----------



## Edie (Apr 4, 2021)

Border Reiver said:


> You can ignore it as you wish. It is widely used in teaching and interpreting mental disorders by psychiatrists and the courts. If you are communicating with people about mental disorders it is widely recognised as a work of definition and reference. I have many reservations about it, but it exists and tends to affect many legal and medical decisions.


ICD is more used in the UK I would have thought. It certainly is clinically.


----------



## Border Reiver (Apr 4, 2021)

Edie said:


> ICD is more used in the UK I would have thought. It certainly is clinically.


Both are used in the three areas I worked. ICD is mainly a listing of diagnostic categories whereas DSM has comprehensive listing of symptomatology.


----------



## ice-is-forming (Apr 4, 2021)

Border Reiver said:


> That must be explained by the fact that I am a retired Mental Health Clinician and Manager with three decades experience and a degree in Psychology; or you could be wrong.



Honestly I wouldn't use that as a measure of your expertise. Ime  being  a retired Mental Health Clinical Manager with three decades experience and a degree in Psychology,  usually translates to being institutionalised,  and an expert on no one but yourself.


----------



## Border Reiver (Apr 4, 2021)

ice-is-forming said:


> Honestly I wouldn't use that as a measure of your expertise. Ime  being  a retired Mental Health Clinical Manager with three decades experience and a degree in Psychology,  usually translates to being institutionalised,  and an expert on no one but yourself.


Only if you are totally incompetent at assessing people. As you probably are. Ad hominem comments are such a time wasting technique. Your opinion of me has no weight.


----------



## ice-is-forming (Apr 4, 2021)

Border Reiver said:


> Only if you are totally incompetent at assessing people. As you probably are. Ad hominem comments are such a time wasting technique. Your opinion of me has no weight.



Oh right that's it    on my ignore list you go


----------



## kabbes (Apr 4, 2021)

A degree in psychology presumably obtained more than three decades ago.  So obtained before 1990. Fortunately, there’s been no development in the field since 1990.


----------



## Knotted (Apr 4, 2021)

littlebabyjesus said:


> On the other side are the theories of the likes of Mermaids. Again, not fringe ideas as, among other things, Mermaids is an influential lobbying organisation. Its theories are just as arbitrary as Blanchard's, promoting a particular form of a 'gender spectrum' filled with stereotypes onto which people in general, and children in particular, are invited to place themselves. It essentialises gender and dogmatically asserts that affirmation of the child's professed gender identity is the only correct course of action.



Do you have a link for this?


----------



## Border Reiver (Apr 4, 2021)

ice-is-forming said:


> Oh right that's it    on my ignore list you go


Good. You will not be wasting my time then.


----------



## bimble (Apr 4, 2021)

Knotted said:


> Do you have a link for this?


I think lbj was remembering this, which caused no end of tumult whenever it first appeared on twitter. It was a slide used by Mermaids as part of a training session for adults but i can't remember more context. I believe Mermaids no longer use it and the only (many) references to it now are from The Other Side, who love to use it for target practice. That's G I joe on the other end from Barbie. 
View attachment 261692


----------



## Border Reiver (Apr 4, 2021)

Knotted said:


> Do you have a link for this?


I thought they were a neutral parent support group with no definite ideology.


----------



## Athos (Apr 4, 2021)

Edie said:


> There is a lot of neuroscience about synaptic pruning and the development of the pre frontal cortex, that shows adolescents cannot weigh up decisions and risks as adults do. I only need to observe the thought patterns/arguments/decisions of my sons to see that evidence. Children need to be supported to explore their feelings and relationships with their bodies and gender. And no active intervention that could constitute harm by the medical community should be considered. To do otherwise is madness- these children as adults will be horrified. Support, understanding, love, counselling, acceptance and _not_ medical intervention.



That sounds good in principle, but it overlooks the urgency of some of this stuff. If puberty blockers are effective (and I accept the very recent NICE report seems to suggest they aren't, albeit I've not had a chance to read it in full), then, given that the side-effects appear to be minimal (accepting there's still some risk), then buying some kids the chance to do that exploration might be appropriate.  But I'm not saying it's something that should be dished out willly-nilly, and I do have concerns that it's not always used to buy time so much as being seen as a step towards inevitable cross-sex hormones (and possibly surgery), against a backdrop that affirmation is always right.


----------



## Knotted (Apr 4, 2021)

Thanks bimble . I've spent half an hour scouring their website and I can't find anything at all about gender spectrums, let alone gender stereotypes.


----------



## Athos (Apr 4, 2021)

Border Reiver said:


> I thought they were a neutral parent support group with no definite ideology.


Lol.


----------



## A380 (Apr 4, 2021)

Border Reiver said:


> Only if you are totally incompetent at assessing people. As you probably are. Ad hominem comments are such a time wasting technique. Your opinion of me has no weight.


And yet they aren’t banned?


----------



## bimble (Apr 4, 2021)

Knotted said:


> Thanks bimble . I've spent half an hour scouring their website and I can't find anything at all about gender spectrums, let alone gender stereotypes.


As far as i recall they did distance themselves quickly from it, it caused a huge stink that picture. Nobody seemed to like it.


----------



## Edie (Apr 4, 2021)

Athos said:


> That sounds good in principle, but it overlooks the urgency of some of this stuff. If puberty blockers are effective (and I accept the very recent NICE report seems to suggest they aren't, albeit I've not had a chance to read it in full), then, given that the side-effects appear to be minimal (accepting there's still some risk), then buying some kids the chance to do that exploration might be appropriate.  But I'm not saying it's something that should be dished out willly-nilly, and I do have concerns that it's not always used to buy time so much as being seen as a step towards inevitable cross-sex hormones (and possibly surgery), against a backdrop that affirmation is always right.


Puberty blockers used to treat children aged 12 to 15 who have severe and persistent gender dysphoria had no significant effect on their psychological function, thoughts of self-harm, or body image, a study has found.

However, as expected, the children experienced reduced growth in height and bone strength by the time they finished their treatment at age 16.









						Puberty blockers do not alleviate negative thoughts in children with gender dysphoria, finds study
					

Puberty blockers used to treat children aged 12 to 15 who have severe and persistent gender dysphoria had no significant effect on their psychological function, thoughts of self-harm, or body image, a study has found.1  However, as expected, the children experienced reduced growth in height and...




					www.bmj.com
				




Reduced height and osteoporosis for at best questionable psychological benefits (or quite possibly significantly adding to psychological distress in the future). This should be causing significant concern with respect to medical ethics. And asking psychologically disturbed children to consent to this?


----------



## Edie (Apr 4, 2021)

Btw I found that googling BNF puberty blockers to try and find which GnRH is used to look up the known side effects.


----------



## Border Reiver (Apr 4, 2021)

Edie said:


> Puberty blockers used to treat children aged 12 to 15 who have severe and persistent gender dysphoria had no significant effect on their psychological function, thoughts of self-harm, or body image, a study has found.
> 
> However, as expected, the children experienced reduced growth in height and bone strength by the time they finished their treatment at age 16.
> 
> ...


Medical ethics has fully considered all of this. No Royal College opposes puberty blockers or surgery where properly considered and consented. There is no ethical bar to treatment.


----------



## Knotted (Apr 4, 2021)

I don't have subscription to the BMJ so I'm not sure what the exact substance of that conclusion is. But I would think that it's very difficult to find statistically significant effects on a small (44) sample size.


----------



## Edie (Apr 4, 2021)

Border Reiver said:


> Medical ethics has fully considered all of this. No Royal College opposes puberty blockers or surgery where properly considered and consented. There is no ethical bar to treatment.


Whether you like it or not there exist significant ethical concerns and widespread debate within the medical community, including RCPsych and RCP.


----------



## bimble (Apr 4, 2021)

Border Reiver said:


> There is no ethical bar to treatment.


What does this sentence mean?


----------



## Edie (Apr 4, 2021)

Knotted said:


> I don't have subscription to the BMJ so I'm not sure what the exact substance of that conclusion is. But I would think that it's very difficult to find statistically significant affects on a small (44) sample size.


Yet those are the kinds of sample sizes available. Low powered evidence.


----------



## Edie (Apr 4, 2021)

bimble said:


> What does this sentence mean?


It’s meaningless.


----------



## Knotted (Apr 4, 2021)

Personally I don't want to be pronouncing on the effects (positive or negative) of puberty blockers. It will require a proper (non cherry picked), statistically competent review of the literature. I ain't up for that.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Apr 4, 2021)

Study here.

Short-term outcomes of pubertal suppression in a selected cohort of 12 to 15 year old young people with persistent gender dysphoria in the UK


----------



## bimble (Apr 4, 2021)

This link is the evidence gathering one from looking at a whole bunch of different studies, with the sources explained. But all the studies are small.




__





						Evidence search service closure information
					






					www.evidence.nhs.uk


----------



## Athos (Apr 4, 2021)

Edie said:


> Puberty blockers used to treat children aged 12 to 15 who have severe and persistent gender dysphoria had no significant effect on their psychological function, thoughts of self-harm, or body image, a study has found.
> 
> However, as expected, the children experienced reduced growth in height and bone strength by the time they finished their treatment at age 16.
> 
> ...



I don't disagree with that. I'm just not so dogmatic about denying that they might ever be appropriate, as I don't have a settled position on their efficacy; there seems to be much contradictory evidence.


----------



## kabbes (Apr 4, 2021)

Border Reiver said:


> Medical ethics has fully considered all of this. No Royal College opposes puberty blockers or surgery where properly considered and consented. There is no ethical bar to treatment.


Oh, well if “medical ethics” has considered it then that’s case closed.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Apr 4, 2021)

bimble said:


> This link is the evidence gathering one from looking at a whole bunch of different studies, with the sources explained. But all the studies are small.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Similar conclusions to the other study, and so not really all that much use. Little change recorded in mental health indicators, and the best that might mean is that the treatments stopped things from getting worse, but given that things were necessarily very bad at the start, that's not entirely convincing to me, particularly as non-pharmaceutical approaches to treatment aren't included for comparison. 



> The results of the studies that reported impact on the critical outcomes of gender dysphoria and mental health (depression, anger and anxiety), and the important outcomes of body image and psychosocial impact (global and psychosocial functioning) in children and adolescents with gender dysphoria are of very low certainty using modified GRADE. They suggest little change with GnRH analogues from baseline to follow-up.
> 
> Studies that found differences in outcomes could represent changes that are either of questionable clinical value, or the studies themselves are not reliable and changes could be due to confounding, bias or chance. It is plausible, however, that a lack of difference in scores from baseline to follow-up is the effect of GnRH analogues in children and adolescents with gender dysphoria, in whom the development of secondary sexual characteristics might be expected to be associated with an increased impact on gender dysphoria, depression, anxiety, anger and distress over time without treatment. One study reported statistically significant reductions in the Child Behaviour Checklist/Youth Self-Report (CBCL/YSR) scores from baseline to follow up, and given that the purpose of GnRH analogues is to reduce distress caused by the development of secondary sexual characteristics and the CBCL/YSR in part measures distress, this could be an important finding. However, as the studies all lack reasonable controls not receiving GnRH analogues, the natural history of the outcomes measured in the studies is not known and any positive changes could be a regression to mean.


----------



## Athos (Apr 4, 2021)

Border Reiver said:


> Medical ethics has fully considered all of this.


Including the very recent studies casting doubt on efficacy?


----------



## Border Reiver (Apr 4, 2021)

Edie said:


> Whether you like it or not there exist significant ethical concerns and widespread debate within the medical community, including RCPsych and RCP.



A very small minority. The Royal Colleges formally support medical and surgical treatment of transgender persons when consented and appropriate in the view of the practitioner.


----------



## Border Reiver (Apr 4, 2021)

bimble said:


> What does this sentence mean?



A medical practitioner may engage in surgical or medical intervention with a patient who is transgender so long as they believe it to be appropriate and to have consent of the patient or parent.


----------



## Knotted (Apr 4, 2021)

OK looking at that quickly. There's no control group there, so it's not comparative with a group who didn't take blockers. From the psychological side, all it's saying is that this group of highly gender dysphoric children did not see psychological improvements on blockers. The blockers may or may not have prevented psychological deterioration - the study doesn't say. It also reports that the participants reported that they were happier (although maybe without the blockers they would have been even happier, you can't tell from the data).

Should also note that for the majority the physical effects were minor for up to 24 months of treatment.

My sympathy is with the researchers on this. Small numbers and ethical restrictions are going to severely hamper any study like this.

I do get the feeling that this is a study that has been seized on because it seems to confirm certain political predispositions. I wish that wouldn't happen from either "side" of this debate.


----------



## Athos (Apr 4, 2021)

Border Reiver said:


> A very small minority. The Royal Colleges formally support medical and surgical treatment of transgender persons when consented and appropriate in the view of the practitioner.


That's not the be-all-and-end-all of medical ethics. Not least of all because Royal Colleges can and do change their positions!


----------



## Border Reiver (Apr 4, 2021)

kabbes said:


> Oh, well if “medical ethics” has considered it then that’s case closed.


So far as medicine and the law are concerned, that is a fact. The law allows clinical decisions to be made by clinicians except in a few very exceptional cases (termination of pregnancy being the major exception which is legally restricted by law; end of life decisions are also legally restricted at times).


----------



## Border Reiver (Apr 4, 2021)

Edie said:


> It’s meaningless.


It is full of meaning. It defines the rights of a doctor to treat patients.


----------



## bimble (Apr 4, 2021)

Border Reiver said:


> A medical practitioner may engage in surgical or medical intervention with a patient who is transgender so long as they believe it to be appropriate and to have consent of the patient or parent.


You mean.. these treatments and procedures are (within certain parameters, age etc) completely legal? Do you think you’re imparting startling new knowledge to us with this ?
You’ve not described an ethical but a legal situation. Why you’d say ‘there’s no ethical bar’ when in fact you mean to express something so mundane that it’s not worth saying at all does remain a mystery.


----------



## kabbes (Apr 4, 2021)

Border Reiver said:


> So far as medicine and the law are concerned, that is a fact. The law allows clinical decisions to be made by clinicians except in a few very exceptional cases (termination of pregnancy being the major exception which is legally restricted by law; end of life decisions are also legally restricted at times).


I’m on your ignore list.


----------



## Athos (Apr 4, 2021)

kabbes said:


> I’m on your ignore list.



Don't go thinking that makes you special - there's a shitload of us!


----------



## 8ball (Apr 4, 2021)

kabbes said:


> I’m on your ignore list.



I think the ignore list needs re-setting every so often due to server space issues.


----------



## kabbes (Apr 4, 2021)

Athos said:


> Don't go thinking that makes you special - there's a shitload of us!


Apparently there are not


----------



## Border Reiver (Apr 4, 2021)

bimble said:


> You mean.. these treatments and procedures are (within certain parameters, age etc) completely legal? Do you think you’re imparting startling new knowledge to us with this ?
> You’ve not described an ethical but a legal situation. Why you’d say ‘there’s no ethical bar’ when in fact you mean to express something so mundane that it’s not worth saying at all does remain a mystery.


Because medical ethics are determined by the appropriate Royal Colleges. "Ethics" here means the agreed professional rules on appropriate behaviour. "Ethics" can also mean the study of the morality, right or wrongness if an action. But medical ethics is specifically about rules on treatment. So when a practitioner considers what is lawful and ethical, that is a matter of medical ethics.

Now there is a wider debate, but that has no effect on what treatment a person should expect from a doctor. I am mainly concerned about supporting the rights of the
 transgender person, not some theoretical consideration of the morality of persons other than the clinician and client.


----------



## Knotted (Apr 4, 2021)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Similar conclusions to the other study, and so not really all that much use. Little change recorded in mental health indicators, and the best that might mean is that the treatments stopped things from getting worse, but given that things were necessarily very bad at the start, that's not entirely convincing to me, particularly as non-pharmaceutical approaches to treatment aren't included for comparison.



Personally, I wouldn't expect puberty blockers to reduce dysphoria (or associated psychological problems) in cohort studies (key word there is cohort). They're blocking puberty, not performing any sort of hormonal transition. These teenagers are worried about going through puberty as a gender they don't identify with, they're worried about their mental health deteriorating. Things not getting worse is a win, surely?


----------



## 8ball (Apr 4, 2021)

Knotted said:


> Personally, I wouldn't expect puberty blockers to reduce dysphoria (or associated psychological problems) in cohort studies (key word there is cohort). They're blocking puberty, not performing any sort of hormonal transition. These teenagers are worried about going through puberty as a gender they don't identify with, they're worried about their mental health deteriorating. Things not getting worse is a win, surely?



Not going to do anything about dysphoria, but putting the brakes on that train that’s coming down the track has to be some relief.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Apr 4, 2021)

Knotted said:


> Personally, I wouldn't expect puberty blockers to reduce dysphoria (or associated psychological problems) in cohort studies (key word there is cohort). They're blocking puberty, not performing any sort of hormonal transition. These teenagers are worried about going through puberty as a gender they don't identify with, they're worried about their mental health deteriorating. Things not getting worse is a win, surely?


I agree largely. You're placing them in a developmental limbo, and nobody thinks puberty blockers are an end in themselves. 

It is stated that they're intended to provide space for reflection/exploration but the near 100% progression to transition doesn't really support that idea. Maybe, as Spack claims, they're just really good at identifying 'really' trans kids at a very early age. Or maybe that break in development acts in a more general way and it becomes a self fulfilling prophesy. 

There is also an alternative possibility - that the dysphoria may be eased by the onset of puberty in at least some cases, leading to different conclusions about their self, gender and perhaps also sexuality as they grow up. That's one of the problems here. We're talking about very young, immature minds.

Regarding this study, I would think further follow up is needed of the 43 who continued into hormone treatment at the end of their period of developmental limbo.


----------



## Knotted (Apr 4, 2021)

A quick note on Keira Bell and Posey Parker.

We've seen the very worst of PP, "armed men in women's toilets" and reaching out to not just the conservative right but the far right as well, but that leaves the impression that she is some sort of fringe figure. I see her as just a particularly hard line, monomaniacal advocate of the "gender critical" position. I believe she's alienated a lot of likeminded activists, but she also gets a lot of instinctive support eg. on mumsnet. Most of what she says is standard fair.

Keira Bell certainly appears very reasonable when she talks about her own experiences. But she's very cagey when it comes to questions about whether her experiences apply to others. She's actually quite adept at giving politician's change-the-subject answers in interviews when this question arises. She's very careful to appear that she's just talking about herself, but with her praise of PP, (whom she sees as a key influence in her de-transition), I think it's reasonable to infer that she thinks transgender identity is nothing more than a combination of ideology and (curable) psychopathology, not just in her case but in all cases (at least female to male).

This morning* I watched PP's interview with KB on PP's Biological Woman's Hour (yeah). Most of what was said was fairly innocuous but towards the end there was an analogy between transgenderism and anorexia, and a desire to prohibit the promotion of positive trans messages on social media. And that came from KB not PP.

My gut feeling is that KB might well grow out of these views (which is not the same thing as deciding she's now trans, of course). But at present she's a problematic figure to put it politely.

*Yeah I know, what am I doing with my life...


----------



## Knotted (Apr 4, 2021)

littlebabyjesus said:


> There is also an alternative possibility - that the dysphoria may be eased by the onset of puberty in at least some cases, leading to different conclusions about their self, gender and perhaps also sexuality as they grow up. That's one of the problems here. We're talking about very young, immature minds.



Yes that occurred to me as a possibility as well.



> Regarding this study, I would think further follow up is needed of the 43 who continued into hormone treatment at the end of their period of developmental limbo.



I wouldn't hold your breath if it there is a follow up. You're not likely to get much out of a small cohort study.


----------



## mauvais (Apr 4, 2021)

Can I ask some of you: what is the point in this thread? I don't mean the OP because whatever - I mean engaging in it.

We did a massive bit on it in the past and it heavily and permanently fucked our community and we should have some basic guilt about that for a start. The only good thing about that was that it eventually ended. Then I look at this one, a load of what appear to be mostly cis men arguing against or on behalf of some apparently absent group, it seems to be an incredibly bad look for all involved, and I wonder what the fuck it's all for. What are you getting out of it?

Perhaps it's because I work with a bunch of trans people who aren't theoretical, but I can't imagine in any circumstance it seeming like a good idea to argue about either the politics or detail of their existence like you're on a zoo trip, regardless of whatever it is I might personally believe. In fact I can't imagine really feeling like it's OK to do anything at all on the subject that isn't massively centred around supporting actual people as they exist, predominantly by shutting the fuck up and listening. All this good-people-on-both-sideism is irrelevant bullshit, we're not moderating Twitter.

I can put this thread and its one-note OP on ignore for sure but I can't kid myself that it's gone and like many more before me, I'm left pretty uncomfortable with this whole emphasis.


----------



## Aladdin (Apr 4, 2021)

Border Reiver said:


> Because medical ethics are determined by the appropriate Royal Colleges. "Ethics" here means the agreed professional rules on appropriate behaviour. "Ethics" can also mean the study of the morality, right or wrongness if an action. But medical ethics is specifically about rules on treatment. So when a practitioner considers what is lawful and ethical, that is a matter of medical ethics.
> 
> Now there is a wider debate, but that has no effect on what treatment a person should expect from a doctor. I am mainly concerned about supporting the rights of the
> transgender person, not some theoretical consideration of the morality of persons other than the clinician and client.



Are you a member of the RCP or RCS?


----------



## 8ball (Apr 4, 2021)

mauvais said:


> Can I ask some of you: what is the point in this thread? I don't mean the OP because whatever - I mean engaging in it.



I’d guess a mixture of people trying to work stuff out in their own head seeing how the twitching remains of the left have got themselves in such a tizzy over this, and then there are people with specific agendas.  Probably other reasons too tbf.



mauvais said:


> In fact I can't imagine really feeling like it's OK to do anything at all on the subject that isn't massively centred around supporting actual people as they exist, predominantly by shutting the fuck up and listening.



Not many left to listen to, which I guess lends itself to your point about how much use there is to the thread.


----------



## Knotted (Apr 4, 2021)

mauvais The reason I'm engaging is that Co-op looks determined to promote this stuff and it has some resonance on here unfortunately. I don't think it's just going to go away. I'm also aware that I may be causing more harm than good though, so I'll but out now.

The thread should have been binned and Co-op put on a warning if not permanently booted. I don't blame the mods for not doing that, because it would have created a storm. But there's no reason urban can't collectively be won over to a more trans accepting position and recognise something like the OP as a provocation. Also when people engage there's often a lot more nuance than there appears at first sight.


----------



## spanglechick (Apr 4, 2021)

Knotted said:


> mauvais The reason I'm engaging is that Co-op looks determined to promote this stuff and it has some resonance on here unfortunately. I don't think it's just going to go away. I'm also aware that I may be causing more harm than good though, so I'll but out now.
> 
> The thread should have been binned and Co-op put on a warning if not permanently booted. I don't blame the mods for not doing that, because it was created a storm. But there's no reason urban can't collectively be won over to a more trans accepting position and recognise something like the OP as a provocation. Also when people engage there's often a lot more nuance than there appears at first sight.


It’s an honourable aim, but tbh, the fight was lost years ago when almost all our trans and non-binary posters left after it became painfully clear that the majority of posters either held trans-exclusionary/sceptical beliefs, or didn’t care enough to get involved in their defence.  
In all that time, not one poster changed their mind.  Active trans-inclusivity is a minority view on urban, and it will doubtless always be.


----------



## 8ball (Apr 4, 2021)

spanglechick said:


> Active trans-inclusivity is a minority view on urban, and it will doubtless always be.



You know this from a couple of threads involving a tiny minority of posters (maybe I misunderstood the term ‘active’ there)?


----------



## spanglechick (Apr 4, 2021)

8ball said:


> You know this from a couple of threads involving a tiny minority of posters (maybe I misunderstood the term ‘active’ there)?


Active like being actively anti racist instead of not a racist.  

The tiny proportion of posters standing up on either side, even to start with, is the point.  If you can sit back and see longstanding trans posters leave and never have spoken up in support of trans inclusion, you’re not actively trans inclusive.  Seems pretty uncontentious to me.


----------



## Knotted (Apr 4, 2021)

spanglechick said:


> It’s an honourable aim, but tbh, the fight was lost years ago when almost all our trans and non-binary posters left after it became painfully clear that the majority of posters either held trans-exclusionary/sceptical beliefs, or didn’t care enough to get involved in their defence.
> In all that time, not one poster changed their mind.  Active trans-inclusivity is a minority view on urban, and it will doubtless always be.



I missed it at the time. I'd rather be seen to have said something now, than to look the other way. By the way, I actually think some views have softened since about a year ago. I think there is a growing awareness about the problems with the gender critical movement, if not all the views of that movement.


----------



## 8ball (Apr 4, 2021)

spanglechick said:


> Active like being actively anti racist instead of not a racist.
> 
> The tiny proportion of posters standing up on either side, even to start with, is the point.  If you can sit back and see longstanding trans posters leave and never have spoken up in support of trans inclusion, you’re not actively trans inclusive.  Seems pretty uncontentious to me.



Fair point.  Though I think maybe a lot of people see things like the OP, think ‘not this shit again’ and disengage so that it hopefully doesn’t result in another long-running toxic sludgefest.


----------



## spanglechick (Apr 4, 2021)

8ball said:


> Fair point.  Though I think maybe a lot of people see things like the OP, think ‘not this shit again’ and disengage so that it hopefully doesn’t result in another long-running toxic sludgefest.


Now, yes. Before it became a long-running toxic sludge fest, _before_ treef and Steph and froggy and MDK and others left, before urban started to be talked about elsewhere as having the same gender politics as mumsnet - that’s the time it wouldn’t have been too late.


----------



## 8ball (Apr 4, 2021)

spanglechick said:


> Now, yes. Before it became a long-running toxic sludge fest, _before_ treef and Steph and froggy and MDK and others left, before urban started to be talked about elsewhere as having the same gender politics as mumsnet - that’s the time it wouldn’t have been too late.



Cheers for clarifying.  Just wasn’t clear (I mean _I_ wasn’t clear - still hungover) on where you were referring to now and where you were referring to that bad time.


----------



## Edie (Apr 4, 2021)

I engage because otherwise women will not be provided single sex spaces when they are most vulnerable- in prison, in hospital, in custody, under a section of the mental health act. And that there is enough historical evidence of that men can and do pose an ongoing threat of sexual violence to vulnerable women.


----------



## Orang Utan (Apr 4, 2021)

Edie said:


> I engage because otherwise women will not be provided single sex spaces when they are most vulnerable- in prison, in hospital, in custody, under a section of the mental health act. And that there is enough historical evidence of that men can and do pose an ongoing threat of sexual violence to vulnerable women.


Is there much evidence that trans women pose such a threat though?


----------



## Pickman's model (Apr 4, 2021)

Edie said:


> I engage because otherwise women will not be provided single sex spaces when they are most vulnerable- in prison, in hospital, in custody, under a section of the mental health act. And that there is enough historical evidence of that men can and do pose an ongoing threat of sexual violence to vulnerable women.


Are women provided single sex spaces in custody or in prisons? An awful lot of men work in women's prisons and police stations.


----------



## mauvais (Apr 4, 2021)

Edie said:


> I engage because otherwise women will not be provided single sex spaces when they are most vulnerable- in prison, in hospital, in custody, under a section of the mental health act. And that there is enough historical evidence of that men can and do pose an ongoing threat of sexual violence to vulnerable women.


Regardless of whether this is a good endeavour or not, how is it going to be achieved through posting on here?


----------



## Edie (Apr 4, 2021)

Pickman's model said:


> Are women provided single sex spaces in custody or in prisons? An awful lot of men work in women's prisons and police stations.


So you think because there are male staff that there should not be single sex accommodation. See men like you are only too quick to take away our protections, because it makes no odds to you.


----------



## Edie (Apr 4, 2021)

mauvais said:


> Regardless of whether this is a good endeavour or not, how is it going to be achieved through posting on here?


You’re suggesting we shouldn’t discuss it because feelings are being hurt. But women have long conceded things to keep the peace.


----------



## Border Reiver (Apr 4, 2021)

Edie said:


> I engage because otherwise women will not be provided single sex spaces when they are most vulnerable- in prison, in hospital, in custody, under a section of the mental health act. And that there is enough historical evidence of that men can and do pose an ongoing threat of sexual violence to vulnerable women.


There is no provision of your idea of women only spaces. Save for staff of shelters, all women only spaces allow people with a GRC (or working towards a GRC) whatever their anatomy.


----------



## Border Reiver (Apr 4, 2021)

Edie said:


> So you think because there are male staff that there should not be single sex accommodation. See men like you are only too quick to take away our protections, because it makes no odds to you.


In prison and hospital there is no guarantee of female only staff.


----------



## mauvais (Apr 4, 2021)

Edie said:


> You’re suggesting we shouldn’t discuss it because feelings are being hurt. But women have long conceded things to keep the peace.


In your case I'm suggesting that since we as Urban75 are not yet to my knowledge in the business of hospital or prison commissioning, specific concerns and risks in these respects - which we do not own or influence - should not be a driver of how we as a community behave around and towards people in general. Whether you try to or not, this and similar threads are never confined to a discussion of what you describe, and instead they end up far more heavily oriented towards equal rights or right to exist. That's what you end up engaging in.

Feelings being hurt is something of an understatement given that the historic outcome of these 'discussions' on here has been to permanently exclude groups of people.


----------



## Mr.Bishie (Apr 4, 2021)

Why hasn’t this shite been binned yet? As others have said, this is the same stuff being re-hashed, and the same hurt caused, and a good friend leaving the boards again ffs!

Co op, I think you knew exactly what you wanted out of this and it’s been allowed - why?


----------



## 8ball (Apr 4, 2021)

mauvais said:


> Feelings being hurt is something of an understatement given that the historic outcome of these 'discussions' on here has been to permanently exclude groups of people.



I think permanent exclusion is something that happens with use of the banhammer.  Some people decided this place wasn’t somewhere they wanted to be (and the site is worse off for it).

I’m probably just trying not to get too hopeless..


----------



## Edie (Apr 4, 2021)

mauvais said:


> In your case I'm suggesting that since we as Urban75 are not yet to my knowledge in the business of hospital or prison commissioning, specific concerns and risks in these respects - which we do not own or influence - should not be a driver of how we as a community behave around and towards people in general. Whether you try to or not, this and similar threads are never confined to a discussion of what you describe, and instead they end up far more heavily oriented towards equal rights or right to exist. That's what you end up engaging in.
> 
> Feelings being hurt is something of an understatement given that the historic outcome of these 'discussions' on here has been to permanently exclude groups of people.


Maybe you’re right and it should just be verboten.


----------



## A380 (Apr 4, 2021)

Mr.Bishie said:


> Why hasn’t this shite been binned yet? As others have said, this is the same stuff being re-hashed, and the same hurt caused, and a good friend leaving the boards again ffs!
> 
> Co op, I think you knew exactly what you wanted out of this and it’s been allowed - why?



^^^ This plus a it's being used as a showcase for a 'very dubious new poster'. Bin it.


----------



## Poot (Apr 4, 2021)

There used to be a time when we couldn't discuss abortion without it becoming a massive bun fight with frustration and hurt feelings. I hope that one day this will become easier to discuss.


----------



## smokedout (Apr 4, 2021)

Edie said:


> Maybe you’re right and it should just be verboten.



Or perhaps we should discuss it on the thread we agreed to, in the part of the forum that has a bit more sensitivity, and those that this doesn't affect should take a step back from the endless beard stroking philosophising.  Because this discussion has only ever proved fruitful when that happened.


----------



## Knotted (Apr 4, 2021)

Sorry if I've stepped on your toes smokedout


----------



## Edie (Apr 4, 2021)

smokedout said:


> Or perhaps we should discuss it on the thread we agreed to, in the part of the forum that has a bit more sensitivity, and those that this doesn't affect should take a step back from the endless beard stroking philosophising.  Because this discussion has only ever proved fruitful when that happened.


To be honest smokedout I’m happy to stfu and let you and others discuss it further.


----------



## smokedout (Apr 4, 2021)

Knotted said:


> Sorry if I've stepped on your toes smokedout



No not at all, I appreciate you trying, it's the same few cis male posters that dominate every discussion on this and who seem to have little interest in the trans experience or the consequences of this debate which has been a large part of what makes urban feel so hostile to trans people at times.


----------



## co-op (Apr 4, 2021)

Knotted said:


> mauvais The reason I'm engaging is that Co-op looks determined to promote this stuff and it has some resonance on here unfortunately. I don't think it's just going to go away. I'm also aware that I may be causing more harm than good though, so I'll but out now.
> 
> The thread should have been binned and Co-op put on a warning if not permanently booted. I don't blame the mods for not doing that, because it would have created a storm. But there's no reason urban can't collectively be won over to a more trans accepting position and recognise something like the OP as a provocation. Also when people engage there's often a lot more nuance than there appears at first sight.



We're both "promoting" stuff, you can shake your head at how evil I am, I don't see any way this issue just disappears because you want it to. I haven't posted on trans issues in ages, I started this thread because someone I know a bit got banned off twitter and I read what she'd written and I just cannot see the "transphobia" in it and I'm left wondering what it is I'm missing, am I the only person who can't see it? And also find myself thinking, is this the kind of person we want to drive out of politics? Because that's what you're arguing for.

I haven't slated anyone on this thread, I have just stated a straight up disagreement of ideology. You disagree. There are obviously plenty of people on here who don't disagree.

Permanently booting anyone whose views you don't like? I think you need to grow up because out of your little lefty bubble you are going to really struggle to get your ideology across and you are handing the political right the easiest culture-war tap-in they've had for a long time.


----------



## co-op (Apr 4, 2021)

spanglechick said:


> Now, yes. Before it became a long-running toxic sludge fest, _before_ treef and Steph and froggy and MDK and others left, before urban started to be talked about elsewhere as having the same gender politics as mumsnet - that’s the time it wouldn’t have been too late.



There's plenty of people from _both_ sides who've been driven out, it seems so built-in to the gender ideology side to keep crying victim that it never seems to occur to you that others get beaten up too, TRAs (probably their super-keen allies) have got a bit legendary for their pile-ons.


----------



## Mr.Bishie (Apr 4, 2021)

Fuck off.


----------



## quimcunx (Apr 4, 2021)

Not sure why you didn't add it to the existing thread.


----------



## mauvais (Apr 4, 2021)

co-op said:


> I haven't posted on trans issues in ages


This is not true.









						The Green Party has some serious questions to answer
					






					www.urban75.net
				












						Census 2021
					

I don't make any money from this website at all, you clueless, stupid, ignorant, unpleasant waft of trolling buffoonery.  Does anyone want this idiot to stay here?   Nah, but would like to know which returning clown it is before the ceremonial binning.




					www.urban75.net
				




Loads of your posts on both.

I went back to December which is page five of your history and there are only three other threads you've posted on.


----------



## Orang Utan (Apr 4, 2021)

So much dishonesty on this thread. And with such arrogance in the confidence that people won’t see through it


----------



## co-op (Apr 5, 2021)

mauvais said:


> This is not true.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Fair enough, I meant starting threads, I believe this is the only one I've started, I was posting last night just before bed so there you go, fill yer boots with my "dishonesty" if that makes you feel better.

 Where a thread is running I'm allowed to post on it. In the census thread the ONS had just got thrashed in court and no one was posting about that despite the fact that the court case had already been discussed -is it forbidden to even mention real-world events unless they happen to support a certain point of view? Why's it illegitimate to even mention this?

Same with the Challenor case, Reddit was closed down by this, isn't that newsworthy? 

How is this going to work? Just shut it down wherever you can and let it be discussed everywhere else, is that the strategy?


----------



## hitmouse (Apr 5, 2021)

co-op said:


> We're both "promoting" stuff, you can shake your head at how evil I am, I don't see any way this issue just disappears because you want it to. I haven't posted on trans issues in ages, I started this thread because someone I know a bit got banned off twitter and I read what she'd written and I just cannot see the "transphobia" in it and I'm left wondering what it is I'm missing, am I the only person who can't see it?


I'm fairly sure the dodginess of the stuff in the OP has been covered several times now, but how about this: she clearly dislikes trans women so much that she can't bring herself to say "trans women" and insists on using the loaded term "trans-identifying male" instead. Fair enough, I'm not the boss of her and I can't dictate what language she uses, but if you insist on talking like that you probably shouldn't expect trans people to throw a parade in your honour or anything,


co-op said:


> Same with the Challenor case, Reddit was closed down by this, isn't that newsworthy?


_Arrested Development narrator voice:_ Reddit was not, in fact, closed down.


----------



## co-op (Apr 5, 2021)

hitmouse said:


> _Arrested Development narrator voice:_ Reddit was not, in fact, closed down.



Ho ho. 

Multiple sub-forums with millions of users were made private by their mods in a spontaneous rebellion against AC's appointment. The only reason that Reddit capitulated and sacked her was because of this.


----------



## Poot (Apr 5, 2021)

1. I had assumed that a lot of the people posting here were trans. Turns out that most of them were cis men with very strong opinions. It's the same ones who turn up on feminist threads and tell us how to do feminism; the trans folk should be allowed to speak, that's how we should learn about this stuff. It's important.

2. You won't get the gc feminists among us joining in this debate anyway. The thread is too hostile. So their opinions seem to have been imagined (mostly by cis men again). So really I don't know what the point of the thread is except once again it seems to want to drive a wedge between people. It just looks like a massive shit stirring exercise from here.


----------



## Kevbad the Bad (Apr 5, 2021)

I agree that this thread, indeed the whole general conversation/debate, is getting nowhere. It might be better if we all stopped talking about it for a while. But in the meantime, with regards to shit stirring, people keep calling others bigots, transphobes, hypocrites and misogynists on this thread, the main trans/terf thread, urban in general and everywhere else. Unless that stops the topic will keep rearing its ugly head, like it or not.


----------



## Knotted (Apr 5, 2021)

co-op said:


> We're both "promoting" stuff, you can shake your head at how evil I am, I don't see any way this issue just disappears because you want it to. I haven't posted on trans issues in ages, I started this thread because someone I know a bit got banned off twitter and I read what she'd written and I just cannot see the "transphobia" in it and I'm left wondering what it is I'm missing, am I the only person who can't see it? And also find myself thinking, is this the kind of person we want to drive out of politics? Because that's what you're arguing for.
> 
> I haven't slated anyone on this thread, I have just stated a straight up disagreement of ideology. You disagree. There are obviously plenty of people on here who don't disagree.
> 
> Permanently booting anyone whose views you don't like? I think you need to grow up because out of your little lefty bubble you are going to really struggle to get your ideology across and you are handing the political right the easiest culture-war tap-in they've had for a long time.



On a personal level you seem like a decent person, and even politically I'm pretty much on the same page as you on most things. You yourself have put your finger on it here, though. It's ideology and in the modern parlance, you've fallen down a rabbit hole. You starting this thread was preceded by you talking about the tra hold over twitter and if you're saying that sort of thing you're in it pretty deep. At the minute, at least, I think you're too involved in these social media wars and nobody is going to argue you out of it. That's something you're going to have to work out on your own. But if I was in the same rabbit hole, I would be doing the same shit stirring. I don't see an end to this.

For some posters (trans or not) Urban75 is a sanctuary from a world where they're experiencing problems including isolation. These threads have the effect of making trans posters feel isolated on here. There's been an informal agreement to keep it all in one place, but you've broken that agreement.


----------



## Knotted (Apr 5, 2021)

For what it's worth, Edie's contributions make me stop and think. I don't want to see somebody like that stfu.


----------



## co-op (Apr 5, 2021)

Knotted said:


> There's been an informal agreement to keep it all in one place, but you've broken that agreement.



Seriously if that's the case I had no idea and I don't know how I'm supposed to have known.


----------



## Looby (Apr 5, 2021)

co-op said:


> Seriously if that's the case I had no idea and I don't know how I'm supposed to have known.


It was mentioned pages ago. I really do think this thread was started to shit stir and give you an opportunity to get the debate going again here.


----------



## Knotted (Apr 5, 2021)

co-op said:


> Seriously if that's the case I had no idea and I don't know how I'm supposed to have known.



OK well you know now.


----------



## Edie (Apr 5, 2021)

Knotted said:


> For what it's worth, Edie's contributions make me stop and think. I don't want to see somebody like that stfu.


Oh don’t worry there’s not much chance of that, but I can put a sock in it to let trans voices be heard.


----------



## Edie (Apr 5, 2021)

Fwiw my impression of co-op is that he is genuinely concerned about women’s rights and the effect identity politics is having on solidarity on the left. I don’t think he is shit stirring for the fun of it. I actually don’t think anyone is engaging in bad faith (the new chap is a bit pompous and has a slightly limited grasp for that degree of pomp, but that aside  ).


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Apr 5, 2021)

Edie said:


> Fwiw my impression of co-op is that he is genuinely concerned about women’s rights and the effect identity politics is having on solidarity on the left. I don’t think he is shit stirring for the fun of it. I actually don’t think anyone is engaging in bad faith (the new chap is a bit pompous and has a slightly limited grasp for that degree of pomp, but that aside  ).


Same here. Also, I did not know of any informal agreement not to start new trans threads. Clearly this wasn't communicated very well. 

I'll leave this alone for a bit as well, but my opinion of debates on this subject here is clearly very different from that of many people. Yes, it's been destructive, and people from both sides have left because of it - that's worth pointing out. But it's the only place I've seen where actual discussion between people with opposing views has happened. Everywhere else I've seen has been an echo chamber of one form or another.


----------



## Edie (Apr 5, 2021)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Same here. Also, I did not know of any informal agreement not to start new trans threads. Clearly this wasn't communicated very well.
> 
> I'll leave this alone for a bit as well, but my opinion of debates on this subject here is clearly very different from that of many people. Yes, it's been destructive, and people from both sides have left because of it - that's worth pointing out. But it's the only place I've seen where actual discussion between people with opposing views has happened. Everywhere else I've seen has been an echo chamber of one form or another.


There’s definitely a lot of ‘Why I'm No Longer Talking to Cis Men About Feminism’ going on among women.


----------



## co-op (Apr 5, 2021)

Looby said:


> It was mentioned pages ago. I really do think this thread was started to shit stir and give you an opportunity to get the debate going again here.



Ive never pretended I didn't want to debate the issue, that would be daft if I ve started a thread - I wanted to try and understand how Vicky Hubble is a transphobe, do people actually think this? Fine there's been no big movement. You c all it shit-stirring, your privilege of course but I think it just means "you think differently" but can't handle that reality.


----------



## co-op (Apr 5, 2021)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Also, I did not know of any informal agreement not to start new trans threads.



An "agreement" by definition needs a bit of agreement doesn't it? It can't just be slapped down by one side of a disagreement, let alone done so so silently that no one else even knows.


----------



## Looby (Apr 5, 2021)

co-op said:


> Ive never pretended I didn't want to debate the issue, that would be daft if I ve started a thread - I wanted to try and understand how Vicky Hubble is a transphobe, do people actually think this? Fine there's been no big movement. You c all it shit-stirring, your privilege of course but I think it just means "you think differently" but can't handle that reality.


I can absolutely handle thinking differently. What I hate is that this has had real implications for individuals and our community. I hate it.
This thread has been awful just like all the other threads. It’s just people arguing about details that don’t really matter in reality.


----------



## smokedout (Apr 5, 2021)

co-op said:


> Ive never pretended I didn't want to debate the issue, that would be daft if I ve started a thread - I wanted to try and understand how Vicky Hubble is a transphobe, do people actually think this? Fine there's been no big movement. You c all it shit-stirring, your privilege of course but I think it just means "you think differently" but can't handle that reality.



You want a debate in the same way Jazzz used to want a debate.  You want a chance to push your increasingly cranky gender critical 'facts' to as wide an audience as possible in the hope you might red pill someone and gain another convert.  You are consistently the most aggresive poster on this subject, you have little interest in actually learning about the lives and experiences of trans people. or women who disagree with you, you simply want to push your ideology down everyone's throat and claim victimhood when you are challenged about it.  That's not a debate, it's evangelicising, its happening all over the internet and it adds nothing of worth  to any constructive conversation.  This situation doesn't affect you, so why not talk less and listen more and if you want to help feminism donate to a refuge or something instead of pouring petrol onto a conflict that has caused very real harm for many women and trans people on these boards,


----------



## purenarcotic (Apr 5, 2021)

People see it as shit stirring because this was argued to death on the other thread, nothing got resolved, good posters left. And here we go again, round and round and round, with people from what I can see just becoming ever more entrenched in their thinking and less and less people wanting to engage because it’s just hideous. I’m especially tired of the men on this thread using women’s services to make whatever point they want when the rest of the time they show no real interest at all in what’s happening to DV support. I hope some hefty donations are being made to refuges because we are drowning under the sea of ever rising demand with less and less resources.


----------



## Athos (Apr 5, 2021)

Some people want to discuss it, others don't (no doubt both groups have a variety reasons for their respective positions - some in good faith, others less so).

The two approaches can be accommodated easily: the conversations continue, and those who don't want to join the discussion ignore those threads, or even engage with the threads but ignore posters with whom they disagree or whom they don't think have standing to participate e.g. men* (albeit that, on other threads some of the same people are arguing it's important for men to engage with feminist issues).

What can't be so easily accommodated is the idea that some seem to want to prevent others from discussing it.  I get that they're upset by others' opinions, but that's part of the price we pay for vibrant boards that aren't over-moderated.  I don't think this place should reward flounces that in some instances look like attempts to emotionally blackmail people into silence. Nor do I buy a lot of the hyperbole about discussions here amounting to a threat to people's very existence; this is one of the few places online where a range of views is reflected, and 99% of the time in a way that's robust but not abusive.

And, as someone who's in the middle - I'm broadly pro-inclusion, but do think it's important to listen to women's concerns, and do have some worries about certain aspects - I've learned a lot from those at either end of the spectrum. I'm really keen to listen to a range of views, but I don't think that means I should accept anything uncritically; I've taken issue with both 'sides' on various points.

And I do think my position has altered as a result of some of what I've read on these boards e.g. I'm far more cynical about a lot of what's presented as evidence by both 'sides' and more attuned to some of the nastier undercurrents.

Whilst I'm not a free-speech absolutist, I believe that, since it's hard to see how this issue can be resolved without communication, all opinions short of bigotry should be allowed.  Now, I appreciate that there's a difference if opinion about where the line is, but, given people do have the option to ignore, I'd say that long-time posters who are otherwise sound be given the benefit of the doubt, to prevent the chilling effect of bad-faith accusations.

That said, I do think that it'd be better if we can avoid upsetting people unnecessarily by confining this stuff to one place (except when it's clearly important to another thread).

*On which issue, I'd make three points:

Firstly, the trans issue is (in part, at least) about gender, and the idea that men have no stake in that is ridiculous.

Secondly, of course we all have different perspectives, and it's important to recognise how they're informed by our own characteristics, but the idea that a good idea becomes bad because it's expressed by the 'wrong' person is bizarre and dangerous.

Thirdly, as someone who has (individually and as part of groups) donated much time and effort, and tens of thousands of pounds to women's causes including DV provision (all trans-inclusionary, as far as I know), the repeated implication of bad faith is tiresome.


----------



## 8ball (Apr 5, 2021)

Athos said:


> I don't think this place should reward flounces that increasingly look like attempts to emotionally blackmail people into silence...



Something something bad faith, you were saying?


----------



## Athos (Apr 5, 2021)

8ball said:


> Something something bad faith, you were saying?



Yeah, that might have come across stronger than I intended; I've edited.


----------



## Looby (Apr 5, 2021)

Athos said:


> Yeah, that might have come across stronger than I intended; I've edited.


Why edit, it’s obviously what you think and was helpful. 
I’m sure the posters who have left the boards will feel reassured too if they popped back hoping things would be different.
I’m not trying to shut down debate but I do think this is all being discussed all over the internet with absolutely fuck all resolution. Most people elsewhere are strangers arguing with each other and the freedom to disengage. It’s different here, people have known each other for years and years. There are real friendships and support networks and that should be the priority.


----------



## Athos (Apr 5, 2021)

Looby said:


> Why edit, it’s obviously what you think and was helpful.
> I’m sure the posters who have left the boards will feel reassured too if they popped back hoping things would be different.
> I’m not trying to shut down debate but I do think this is all being discussed all over the internet with absolutely fuck all resolution. Most people elsewhere are strangers arguing with each other and the freedom to disengage. It’s different here, people have known each other for years and years. There are real friendships and support networks and that should be the priority.



The edit is because it didn't accurately reflect my thoughts (I'm not one to mince words).

That it's not been resolved doesn't mean it can't or won't be.

Real friendships and support networks ought to be able to survive a difference of opinion; it's the demand for orthodoxy that undermines broad-based solidarity.

And if they don't survive, that's sad, but life goes on; I find the idea that adults can't share a corner of the internet with someone with whom they disagree (even with the ability to ignore that person!) bizarre.

Ironically, the 'GC' side has been much better at this than their opponents, with alliances between so-called feminists, right wing groups, religious hardliners, and the mass media!


----------



## Knotted (Apr 5, 2021)

co-op said:


> Ive never pretended I didn't want to debate the issue, that would be daft if I ve started a thread - I wanted to try and understand how Vicky Hubble is a transphobe, do people actually think this? Fine there's been no big movement. You c all it shit-stirring, your privilege of course but I think it just means "you think differently" but can't handle that reality.



You didn't start this to understand transphobia, you started it to start a political argument. That's fine, it's just that your politics are anti-trans. You're not here to listen. My personal inclination is towards complete free speech, even let fascists talk if they want to, but I recognise that's a recipe for constant war and upset. But that's also the result of your anti-trans politics. Urban75 collectively wouldn't tolerate this if it were any other group under fire.

Edit: I'm being too generous. You've recently stated in the Censor thread that these arguments are pointless, and it's not the first time you have tried to shut down this debate that you suddenly want to have either. I defer to what smokedout said above. Just red pilling propaganda.


----------



## mauvais (Apr 5, 2021)

Confining it to one avoidable place would be a start but it's probably not enough. Even if the 'discussion' stays in one place the social consequences leak everywhere, as do impressions of what or who this place is and isn't for.

It's hardly a 'flounce' if a large number of people that we can all name who were here for a decade left and never came back. The fallout from this is not theoretical, it has happened and continues to happen. It's not absolutely unique, we have had certain moments where political disagreements have done damage but nothing quite so fundamental to who people are. Just think about what the words 'toxic environment' mean to you - imagine a workplace or whatever else for context - and it's entirely possible that noone has to _do _anything, it can be the product of conversations alone.

I read all this justification for this stuff and to be blunt, at best, I just think you want to be granted the luxury of a license to carry on arguing the toss about something as if it were an irrelevant academic hobby, rather than something material to some people's lives, but unfortunately it is not.

There is a lot more to be said on this like, given historical parallels, where this whole thing is likely to be in decades from now and what your positions are likely to look like in retrospect, but it's all secondary to the damage being done to a community in exchange for individual entertainment, if even that.


----------



## hitmouse (Apr 5, 2021)

purenarcotic said:


> I’m especially tired of the men on this thread using women’s services to make whatever point they want when the rest of the time they show no real interest at all in what’s happening to DV support. I hope some hefty donations are being made to refuges because we are drowning under the sea of ever rising demand with less and less resources.


Yeah, I had been thinking of saying something like that but wasn't sure how to put it without sounding like further pointscoring. But yes, I think Sisters Uncut do good and important work that should be supported.


----------



## mauvais (Apr 5, 2021)

Athos said:


> And if they don't survive, that's sad, but life goes on; I find the idea that adults can't share a corner of the internet with someone with whom they disagree (even with the ability to ignore that person!) bizarre.


In particular I suggest that this line reveals a great deal of privilege on your part and perhaps this is something you could reflect on.


----------



## Athos (Apr 5, 2021)

mauvais said:


> Confining it to one avoidable place would be a start but it's probably not enough. Even if the 'discussion' stays in one place the social consequences leak everywhere, as do impressions of what or who this place is and isn't for.
> 
> It's hardly a 'flounce' if a large number of people that we can all name who were here for a decade left and never came back. The fallout from this is not theoretical, it has happened and continues to happen. It's not absolutely unique, we have had certain moments where political disagreements have done damage but nothing quite so fundamental to who people are. Just think about what the words 'toxic environment' mean to you - imagine a workplace or whatever else for context - and it's entirely possible that noone has to _do _anything, it can be the product of conversations alone.
> 
> ...



Is it a "large number"?  I can think of a handful, a number of whom have returned.

To dismiss the issue as a "hobby" or "entertainment" is a bit patronising.


----------



## mauvais (Apr 5, 2021)

Athos said:


> Is it a "large number"?  I can think of a handful, a number of whom have returned.


Of course it is. I'm not going to name them for you. The owner of this site acknowledges that it was an enormously damaging episode.


----------



## Athos (Apr 5, 2021)

mauvais said:


> Of course it is. I'm not going to name them for you. The owner of this site acknowledges that it was an enormously damaging episode.



We can agree to disagree.


----------



## Athos (Apr 5, 2021)

mauvais said:


> In particular I suggest that this line reveals a great deal of privilege on your part and perhaps this is something you could reflect on.



I will.  And I do get your point that I'm fortunate not to have to rely on this place for emotional support, but I still find it odd that people would prefer not to know that their friends think differently from them.  If I found out one of my mates was a racist, I'd try to change their mind; if I couldn't, I'd end our friendship.  That'd be sad, but still preferable to not knowing they are a racist, surely?


----------



## Shechemite (Apr 5, 2021)

Sisters uncut are hardly an unproblematic organisation 



My own sympathies with gender critical feminism began when I watched a 29 year old fella physically assault a 60 year old woman. (After stalking them round london and proclaiming in social media their desire to ‘fuck up a terf). And then seeing sections of the left leap to defence of ‘the she wolf’.

safer spaces eh


----------



## bimble (Apr 5, 2021)

Athos said:


> And if they don't survive, that's sad, but life goes on; I find the idea that adults can't share a corner of the internet with someone with whom they disagree (even with the ability to ignore that person!) bizarre.


This sounds perfectly reasonable but the thing you may be missing is that maybe you’ve never been ‘disagreed with’ about a thing that feels deeply personal and vulnerable and core to who you are, something that’s not just an opinion.
For instance I buggered off from here for one year when the antisemitism thing was raging on, because the vast majority of the posts on this website on that subject hurt to read, which is not the same thing as disagreeing, just actual hurt accumulating to a sort of frightening level where for my own mental ok-ness I had to go away.

I’m obviously not one to preach on this but one of the mostly-departed posters said something, not long ago, about how this subject can feel like that, to them, which was uncomfortable but helpful to be told. And if you’ve no idea what that might feel like, maybe think about why.


----------



## mauvais (Apr 5, 2021)

Athos said:


> We can agree to disagree.


This is not worth anything. What I want is for you (and others) to listen to people, not necessarily me. So far this has been you saying what you want. Your last few posts appear to be based around a perspective of this place as a big piece of machinery for discussion that benefits the discourse and your own learning, with you thinking about how to sustain and optimise that machine for its highest productivity. But it simply isn't that. Maybe once, years ago, but certainly not any more. It's predominantly now a fixed-in-place bunch of individual people clinging on to something that brought us together, and its utility as an interesting argument factory is a distant second to that.


Athos said:


> I will.  And I get your point that I'm fortunate not to have to rely on this place for emotional support, but I still find it odd that people would prefer not to know that their friends think differently from them.


Vulnerable people do rely on this place for emotional support, but that's only one aspect of what I'm talking about. Would you want to remain in a place where some crucial, immutable element of your actual life is used as a theoretical football? You can't agree to disagree about what you are. So if your friends 'think differently', then in this case it's quite likely to be, in some form, contrary to your right to exist as you are. In the absence of being able to resolve anything by those people listening to you, it _would _actually be far better to never reveal the difference. Given the circumstances in which they exist, some things are much better not expressed.


----------



## Athos (Apr 5, 2021)

bimble said:


> This sounds perfectly reasonable but the thing you may be missing is that maybe you’ve never been ‘disagreed with’ about a thing that feels deeply personal and vulnerable and core to who you are, something that’s not just an opinion.
> For instance I buggered off from here for one year when the antisemitism thing was raging on, because the vast majority of the posts on this website on that subject hurt to read, which is not the same thing as disagreeing, just actual hurt accumulating to a sort of frightening level where for my own mental ok-ness I had to go away.
> 
> I’m obviously not one to preach on this but one of the mostly-departed posters said something, not long ago, about how this subject can feel like that, to them, which was uncomfortable but helpful to be told. And if you’ve no idea what that might feel like, maybe think about why.



Fair points.

Can I ask why you didn't just ignore those discussions and/or posters?


----------



## Athos (Apr 5, 2021)

mauvais said:


> This is not worth anything. What I want is for you (and others) to listen to people, not necessarily me. So far this has been you saying what you want. Your last few posts appear to be based around a perspective of this place as a big piece of machinery for discussion that benefits the discourse and your own learning, with you thinking about how to sustain and optimise that machine for its highest productivity. But it simply isn't that. Maybe once, years ago, but certainly not any more. It's predominantly now a fixed-in-place bunch of individual people clinging on to something that brought us together, and its utility as an interesting argument factory is a distant second to that.
> Vulnerable people do rely on this place for emotional support, but that's only one aspect of what I'm talking about. Would you want to remain in a place where some crucial, immutable element of your actual life is used as a theoretical football? You can't agree to disagree about what you are. So if your friends 'think differently', then in this case it's quite likely to be, in some form, contrary to your right to exist as you are. In the absence of being able to resolve anything by those people listening to you, it _would _actually be far better to never reveal the difference. Given the circumstances in which they exist, some things are much better not expressed.



Fair enough, I guess people have different conceptions of what this place is and what it should be.

Regarding the second paragraph, I don't buy the hyperbole; I can't think of a single instance here when a friend has said to a friend anything that could reasonably be interpreted as "contrary to their right to exist."


----------



## bimble (Apr 5, 2021)

Athos said:


> Fair points.
> 
> Can I ask why you didn't just ignore those discussions and/or posters?


This would take a small essay tbh (i did try) but a mixture mainly of two things I think: 
One is that, when you feel vulnerable, you may have a compulsion to see what is happening, what 'the threat' thinks, what they are doing. 
The other, which is specific to here, is that I liked a lot of those same people, I thought of them as friends, so just ignoring their posts on that and carrying on elsewhere did not work. Some friendships were lost, some respect not repairable.


----------



## Athos (Apr 5, 2021)

bimble said:


> This would take a small essay tbh (i did try) but a mixture mainly of two things I think:
> One is that, when you feel vulnerable, you may have a compulsion to see what is happening, what 'the threat' thinks, what they are doing.
> The other, which is specific to here, is that I liked a lot of those same people, I thought of them as friends, so just ignoring their posts on that and carrying on elsewhere did not work. Some friendships were lost, some respect not repairable.



Thanks.

What would have been your preferred way for that to have panned out?


----------



## bimble (Apr 5, 2021)

Athos said:


> Thanks.
> 
> What would have been your preferred way for that to have panned out?


I dunno. It was, again, just here reflecting a wider thing, it was not specific to this place.


----------



## Athos (Apr 5, 2021)

bimble said:


> I dunno. It was, again, just here reflecting a wider thing, it was not specific to this place.


More specifically, would you rather not have known that was how your friends felt?


----------



## bimble (Apr 5, 2021)

Athos said:


> More specifically, would you rather not have known that was how your friends felt?


I'm going to have to think about that ! Honestly dont know the answer. It never occurred to me that the subject should not be discussed, or that it should be moderated into a state where nobody could hurt me, but it did get to a point where I felt i had to leave, which felt really shitty.


----------



## Athos (Apr 5, 2021)

bimble said:


> I'm going to have to think about that ! Honestly dont know the answer.



Please do. I can't imagine preferring blissful ignorance, but then I've never been in that situation.


----------



## ElizabethofYork (Apr 5, 2021)

Athos said:


> a difference of opinion; it's the demand for orthodoxy that undermines broad-based solidarity.
> 
> And if they don't survive, that's sad, but life goes on; I find the idea that adults can't share a corner of the internet with someone with whom they disagree (even with the ability to ignore that person!) bizarre.



You seem to be treating this subject as an interesting thing to muse over.  To put your thoughts down in writing.  Other people here are talking about their very being.  Their very life.  Their lived experiences.  Talking about "ignoring" people is totally missing the point.


----------



## Edie (Apr 5, 2021)

mauvais you are arguing very persuasively.
I’m pretty convinced about your point that community is more important than thrashing this out. I am particularly aware of one or two other Mums who have trans kids for whom this is a tender subject.

So let’s talk about it. How would it look like if there was a self imposed moratorium on discussing trans issues here? Would it be workable, enforceable, desirable?


----------



## Athos (Apr 5, 2021)

ElizabethofYork said:


> You seem to be treating this subject as an interesting thing to muse over.  To put your thoughts down in writing.  Other people here are talking about their very being.  Their very life.  Their lived experiences.  Talking about "ignoring" people is totally missing the point.



I accept that there are people who have more emotional investment in this issue. But I don't think that affects the points I made.


----------



## Athos (Apr 5, 2021)

Edie said:


> ... self imposed moratorium...



Aren't these contradictory terms? One implies a choice not to do something; the other is a prohibition on doing it (for a fixed period).


----------



## Knotted (Apr 5, 2021)

There surely shouldn't be a moratorium on discussing trans issues. There's some really useful information about real world consequences relating to current policy on these threads for example. We should be blaming the transphobia, not the conversation.


----------



## Athos (Apr 5, 2021)

A better idea might be a public boycott (time-limited if necessary), along with a digital picket line.

A thread could be started asking people to publicly commit to refrain from posting on such threads other than to dissuade others from doing so.

If people decline to join the boycott or breach their commitment there'd be social disproval but no bans and no absolute restriction on the freedom to discuss these issues.

It could explicitly acknowledge that we don't feel any subject should be off-limits, but that recent history suggests these discussions haven't provided much positive, and have damaged relationships. Effectively agreeing to disagree without the necessity to keep picking over the detail of that disagreement.

The obvious problem, though, is how do you define threads subject to a boycott?  Trans people might like to be able to discuss these issues! Maybe an exception for threads started by trans people, unless and until they ask for the thread to come to an end?


----------



## Edie (Apr 5, 2021)

Athos said:


> Aren't these contradictory terms? One implies a choice not to do something; the other is a prohibition on doing it (for a fixed period).


Oh possibly. I wasn’t a hundred percent on what moratorium meant sorry


----------



## 8ball (Apr 5, 2021)

Athos said:


> A better idea might be a public boycott (time-limited if necessary), along with a digital picket line.



I’ll get started on my digital placard..


----------



## Knotted (Apr 5, 2021)

The thread was started with the intention of tutting at "tra's" (which means any trans person willing to speak up for themselves). Intimidating trans posters into silence and pushing them out was part and parcel of the whole game.

(The remaining) trans posters shouldn't feel they can't talk about trans issues because it would spark another debate where the nature of their very existence is up for discussion. They should even be able to criticise certain dubious branches of feminism if they want to.

(And yes there are problems within feminism, just like there are problems within everything else.)


----------



## Kevbad the Bad (Apr 5, 2021)

I've enjoyed posting on Urban for the past year and a bit, and enjoyed reading others posts even more. But I'm going to stop now. This whole trans issue is awash with misunderstandings and ill feeling. It's coloured my view of other posters, almost certainly unfairly, but there you go. Too many seem to be oblivious to their encouragement of uniformity, orthodoxy and intolerance, their blinkered take on what is considered transphobic, bigoted etc etc I'll miss some of you. I won't miss others. Bye.


----------



## Athos (Apr 5, 2021)

Knotted said:


> The thread was started with the intention of tutting at "tra's" (which means any trans person willing to speak up for themselves). Intimidating trans posters into silence and pushing them out was part and parcel of the whole game.
> 
> (The remaining) trans posters shouldn't feel they can't talk about trans issues because it would spark another debate where the nature of their very existence is up for discussion. They should even be able to criticise certain dubious branches of feminism if they want to.
> 
> (And yes there are problems within feminism, just like there are problems within everything else.)



There's important stuff and dodgy stuff on both sides of the debate. There'd have to be some reciprocity and a mutual recognition that any boycott is less about the substantive arguments, and more about the fact that people can agree that these threads seem to do more harm than good (for now, at least).


----------



## Athos (Apr 5, 2021)

Kevbad the Bad said:


> I've enjoyed posting on Urban for the past year and a bit, and enjoyed reading others posts even more. But I'm going to stop now. This whole trans issue is awash with misunderstandings and ill feeling. It's coloured my view of other posters, almost certainly unfairly, but there you go. Too many seem to be oblivious to their encouragement of uniformity, orthodoxy and intolerance, their blinkered take on what is considered transphobic, bigoted etc etc I'll miss some of you. I won't miss others. Bye.



Why not ignore this thread (and similar) and stay for the 99% of stuff on other topics?


----------



## mojo pixy (Apr 5, 2021)

Kevbad the Bad said:


> I've enjoyed posting on Urban for the past year and a bit, and enjoyed reading others posts even more. But I'm going to stop now. This whole trans issue is awash with misunderstandings and ill feeling. It's coloured my view of other posters, almost certainly unfairly, but there you go. Too many seem to be oblivious to their encouragement of uniformity, orthodoxy and intolerance, their blinkered take on what is considered transphobic, bigoted etc etc I'll miss some of you. I won't miss others. Bye.



"The" trans thread of yesteryear was my main reason for quitting this site a couple of years ago. The few times I've dropped back in I've found it such hard work that I can manage a day or two before I have to go again. Emotionally supportive, _not_.

I may follow your lead, I really need to cut this place out but it's surprisingly hard after 10+ years. It's not getting better, and it doesn't even have the political education value it used to.


----------



## Knotted (Apr 5, 2021)

Athos said:


> There's important stuff and dodgy stuff on both sides of the debate. There'd have to be some reciprocity and a mutual recognition that any boycott is less about the substantive arguments, and more about the fact that people can agree that these threads seem to do more harm than good (for now, at least).



I've not seen any dodgy stuff come from trans inclusive people here on urban, I can't speak for elsewhere. And to be fair most people on the other "side" aren't saying dodgy things either as far as I can tell. There isn't a fundamental conflict between trans rights and women's rights, there's just a few practical quandaries and this whole business about talking about sides is part of the problem.

We just need to fuck off the handful of idiots out of here.


----------



## Athos (Apr 5, 2021)

Knotted said:


> I've not seen any dodgy stuff come from trans inclusive people here on urban, I can't speak for elsewhere. And to be fair most people on the other "side" aren't saying dodgy things either as far as I can tell. There isn't a fundamental conflict between trans rights and women's rights, there's just a few practical quandaries and this whole business about talking about sides is part of the problem.
> 
> We just need to fuck off the handful of idiots out of here.



I think you underestimate the challenge of identifying that handful!


----------



## Orang Utan (Apr 5, 2021)

Athos said:


> I think you underestimate the challenge of identifying that handful!


No we can see you


----------



## Athos (Apr 5, 2021)

Orang Utan said:


> No we can see you


Very droll.


----------



## Knotted (Apr 5, 2021)

Athos said:


> I think you underestimate the challenge of identifying that handful!



I think at the minute at least it's only co-op who is intent on causing problems. I think posters like you and I can show a bit more restraint perhaps...


----------



## Orang Utan (Apr 5, 2021)

Athos said:


> Very droll.


wasn't meant to be


----------



## bimble (Apr 5, 2021)

I’ve no strong feelings either way, about whether this should be a subject about which this website decides it can't or doesn't want to speak at all. If it does turn out that way it would again just be a reflection of a wider thing.

But also I don't think i'm giving away any great secret if i say that there's a private conversation thats been going on, on and off, behind the back of this and previous threads, for years, amongst a smallish group of women most of whom never post on the public threads on this any more or even read them because they feel its impossible pointless or too painful to do so. And i think thats what you end up with, when you decide a conversation is too fraught to exist in the public square it's not that people stop wanting to discuss its just that you end up with little groups who mostly agree with each other talking only to each other.  Which is most of the internet i suppose, and can be supportive and nice but something about it is sad too, its a giving up on the idea that we might learn by engaging.


----------



## Pickman's model (Apr 5, 2021)

Edie said:


> So you think because there are male staff that there should not be single sex accommodation. See men like you are only too quick to take away our protections, because it makes no odds to you.


Your "you think" doesn't follow from what I said. Your post utterly dishonest because I'm not saying what you claim.


----------



## Edie (Apr 5, 2021)

Pickman's model said:


> Your "you think" doesn't follow from what I said. Your post utterly dishonest because I'm not saying what you claim.


No one cares. Seriously, no one cares what you, a cis man, has to say about me as a woman wanting single sex prison accommodation for women. So hush.


----------



## Pickman's model (Apr 5, 2021)

Edie said:


> No one cares. Seriously, no one cares what you, a cis man, has to say about me as a woman wanting single sex prison accommodation for women. So hush.


You do. You cared enough to reply to me and misrepresent what I said. I didn't say there shouldn't be such single sex accommodation.


----------



## mauvais (Apr 5, 2021)

Edie said:


> mauvais you are arguing very persuasively.
> I’m pretty convinced about your point that community is more important than thrashing this out. I am particularly aware of one or two other Mums who have trans kids for whom this is a tender subject.
> 
> So let’s talk about it. How would it look like if there was a self imposed moratorium on discussing trans issues here? Would it be workable, enforceable, desirable?


Short answer: I don't know, it's difficult, and I'm glad I don't run this place.

Longer answer... I'm acutely aware of the deep irony of me, a cis man, chiming in on any of this, let alone putting forth the answer. But lots of other voices are now gone.

I'll try and articulate something. At work (which in its day to day business is not related to any of this) we have diversity/inclusivity spaces where staff can chat, share news articles and every so often - usually prompted by external events involving BLM, Pride etc - someone organises listening sessions. In this we hear all kinds of marginalised or minority voices, be it on societal racism or women's experiences in the workplace, and I've learnt a lot from it. Now I just can't imagine asserting strong opinions in these places, not least as I mentioned a while back, largely because it is not theoretical, it concerns real colleagues. If we were discussing this stuff in a void where they were absent then maybe I would be mansplaining it to death, because I am an idiot, but that's not how it is. It is for me to listen and often adjust my thinking. It's also not an arrangement that primarily exists _for _me to be educated; I can derive that from it if I'm lucky but it is mostly to provide a space for other people to organise and feel more supported in. As someone said to me, paraphrasing, it is not for society's victims to educate the non-victims - e.g. for women and non-binary people to educate us/me on gender discrimation.

In a work context it is easier to form this culture because of basic professionalism, but it's not just that, it's a people-centric construct where we are not just willy waving for the sake of an argument, it's made real by real people. In our case we already lost a lot of those people and even if they could be coaxed back we have not really reformed how we behave so it would invite more hurt.

I think I would ask the question: we are ourselves a fairly strong community that generally values and often knows each other, so how do we get to something like the culture I describe? Moratoriums on subjects etc are a strategy or implementation detail that may or may not support a bigger idea of creating an inclusive space and being good to each other. Behaviours I think we have here, like thinking of ourselves as something like Twitter - which is not a community - are the opposite of that.

Possibly it is too late, both in terms of the arc of this place and forums like it as a whole, and in terms of the representation we already lost. But trying to be more considerate in what we rattle on about would be a start, even if that does mean going a bit far and shutting down some discourse too soon because of its potential for toxicity. There are probably many other components to the answer too.


----------



## a_chap (Apr 5, 2021)

Edie said:


> So let’s talk about it. How would it look like if there was a self imposed moratorium on discussing trans issues here? Would it be workable, enforceable, desirable?



I don't know about workable, enforceable or desirable but it seems to me future historians will conclude that threads about trans' issues was finally the way that Urban75 ceased to be a community.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Apr 5, 2021)

Maybe I was wrong to think this was a place these disagreements could be aired. Probably was wrong.

I'll sign off by leaving this here. I would normally quote from it but won't as that would just be asking for more debate. It's quite long but imho it's worth the read and could be of interest, to see this considered perspective if nothing else. It's a piece by the psychoanalyst who resigned as a governor of the Tavistock clinic.

Why I Resigned from Tavistock: Trans-Identified Children Need Therapy, Not Just ‘Affirmation’ and Drugs


----------



## Border Reiver (Apr 5, 2021)

littlebabyjesus said:


> Maybe I was wrong to think this was a place these disagreements could be aired. Probably was wrong.
> 
> I'll sign off by leaving this here. I would normally quote from it but won't as that would just be asking for more debate. It's quite long but imho it's worth the read and could be of interest, to see this considered perspective if nothing else. It's a piece by the psychoanalyst who resigned as a governor of the Tavistock clinic.
> 
> Why I Resigned from Tavistock: Trans-Identified Children Need Therapy, Not Just ‘Affirmation’ and Drugs


Always worth reading a view from the minority. Does not make it more valid than the vast majority.


----------



## smokedout (Apr 5, 2021)

> Always worth reading a view from the minority.



Even a dogmatic Freudian with no clinical experience of treating trans kids, who has no published work on trans people, done no formal research into trans people and who just so happens to have a book coming out outlining his evidence free theories of how to cure gender dysphoric kids with the power of his mighty psycho-analysing skills.   And who seems to support Zucker's attempts at conversion therapy which I outlined earlier in the thread - although even Zucker supprts medical transition when gender dysphoria persists into adolescence.

I think articles like this are one of the most depressing aspects of this debate.  There's so much of it which doesn't tell the whole story, or ignores inconvenient facts or sometimes just tells bare faced lies.  None of the people he cites have any expertise in the field, other than Zucker who he conveniently cherry picks.  So many people are setting themselves up as experts on trans kids when half of them have barely ever even spoken to a trans kid and people are accepting it because what they say chimes with their personal hunches about trans people.  It would take an essay of equal length to point out the inaccuracies, omissions and obvious biases in that piece by Evans, and I'm not even sure there's any point anymore.  What I do know however, is that if they do manage to stop all treatments for trans kids in the UK, these kids will not be thanking all of you who supported it a decade or so later.  They will be filled with burning hatred for the rest of their lives over the insistence that people's evidence free pet theories about gender identity superceded their lived experience and understanding of themselves.  And if you want to see a taste of that read Ky Schevers and some of the others from the first wave of detransitioners who have subsequently retransitioned - which incidentally is exactly what you'd expect if you read any of the evidence about the experiences of detransitioners:  Ky Schevers – Medium


----------



## smokedout (Apr 5, 2021)

Still at least there is a certain irony in Freudian and Jungian psyschoanalysts criticising treatment protocols for lack of evidence.  People in glass houses and all that.


----------



## 8ball (Apr 5, 2021)

smokedout said:


> Still at least there is a certain irony in Freudian and Jungian psyschoanalysts criticising treatment protocols for lack of evidence.  People in glass houses and all that.



That ‘like’ wasn’t laughing _at_ the post btw - I think it’s a good point.  I’m far less conversant with Jung than Freud tbf (aside from knowing Jordan Peterson talks about the former a lot).

What concerns me about that article is that it makes a lot of claims with no reference to the kind sources I’d tend to look for (when making claims about studies and science - I’m not talking about links to interviews with fellow-travellers) , and there are exactly _no_ comments below it addressing those claims.  It is all cheerleading (well, 90% cheerleading and 10% rank transphobia).  Maybe one could point to the source and say perhaps some people are disengaging with the cesspool , but I suspect there is more to the story and Quilette’s modding might not be as “all about the freespeech” as is claimed.

I’ve gone on too long, anything further should be in a different place than here.


----------



## Border Reiver (Apr 6, 2021)

smokedout said:


> Even a dogmatic Freudian with no clinical experience of treating trans kids, who has no published work on trans people, done no formal research into trans people and who just so happens to have a book coming out outlining his evidence free theories of how to cure gender dysphoric kids with the power of his mighty psycho-analysing skills.   And who seems to support Zucker's attempts at conversion therapy which I outlined earlier in the thread - although even Zucker supprts medical transition when gender dysphoria persists into adolescence.
> 
> I think articles like this are one of the most depressing aspects of this debate.  There's so much of it which doesn't tell the whole story, or ignores inconvenient facts or sometimes just tells bare faced lies.  None of the people he cites have any expertise in the field, other than Zucker who he conveniently cherry picks.  So many people are setting themselves up as experts on trans kids when half of them have barely ever even spoken to a trans kid and people are accepting it because what they say chimes with their personal hunches about trans people.  It would take an essay of equal length to point out the inaccuracies, omissions and obvious biases in that piece by Evans, and I'm not even sure there's any point anymore.  What I do know however, is that if they do manage to stop all treatments for trans kids in the UK, these kids will not be thanking all of you who supported it a decade or so later.  They will be filled with burning hatred for the rest of their lives over the insistence that people's evidence free pet theories about gender identity superceded their lived experience and understanding of themselves.  And if you want to see a taste of that read Ky Schevers and some of the others from the first wave of detransitioners who have subsequently retransitioned - which incidentally is exactly what you'd expect if you read any of the evidence about the experiences of detransitioners:  Ky Schevers – Medium


The subsequent sentence shows there was a note of irony missing from your quote of part of the comment.

Puberty blockers have been confirmed to be ethical and lawful by a subsequent case at the High Court. No current treatment has been affected and the only question now is whether a child can consent to puberty blockers while their parent opposes them. A very narrow point still being appealed.


----------



## Edie (Apr 6, 2021)

smokedout said:


> Even a dogmatic Freudian with no clinical experience of treating trans kids, who has no published work on trans people, done no formal research into trans people and who just so happens to have a book coming out outlining his evidence free theories of how to cure gender dysphoric kids with the power of his mighty psycho-analysing skills.   And who seems to support Zucker's attempts at conversion therapy which I outlined earlier in the thread - although even Zucker supprts medical transition when gender dysphoria persists into adolescence.
> 
> I think articles like this are one of the most depressing aspects of this debate.  There's so much of it which doesn't tell the whole story, or ignores inconvenient facts or sometimes just tells bare faced lies.  None of the people he cites have any expertise in the field, other than Zucker who he conveniently cherry picks.  So many people are setting themselves up as experts on trans kids when half of them have barely ever even spoken to a trans kid and people are accepting it because what they say chimes with their personal hunches about trans people.  It would take an essay of equal length to point out the inaccuracies, omissions and obvious biases in that piece by Evans, and I'm not even sure there's any point anymore.  What I do know however, is that if they do manage to stop all treatments for trans kids in the UK, these kids will not be thanking all of you who supported it a decade or so later.  They will be filled with burning hatred for the rest of their lives over the insistence that people's evidence free pet theories about gender identity superceded their lived experience and understanding of themselves.  And if you want to see a taste of that read Ky Schevers and some of the others from the first wave of detransitioners who have subsequently retransitioned - which incidentally is exactly what you'd expect if you read any of the evidence about the experiences of detransitioners:  Ky Schevers – Medium


I will say this. There are no ‘experts’, other than trans people on their lived experience. There are only theories about what causes some people to experience their physical body as at odds with their psychological perception of themselves.

The idea that gender is an ‘essence’ that exists as something separate to biological sex, something that should be discovered by an individual during life rather than ‘assigned’ at birth, is an explanation but it is not a fact. And it cannot be proven or disproven by science. Any more than the idea put forward in the article that littlebabyjesus linked to, that gender dysphoria is linked to the traumatic separation from the primary caregiver (mother). These are psychological theories which are not amenable to scientific proof.

Leaving aside the theoretical explanations of why some people experience gender dysphoria, you can try and use the scientific method to measure whether one medical treatment is better than another. The outcome measure usually a proxy for psychological distress (suicide attempts, or self reported episodes of suicidal ideation). These kinds of measures are fraught with difficulty, and biases within the method, but are the best that science can do. The often low powered studies that exist, provide equivocal evidence overall for medical intervention.

What is a fact is that medicine cannot change a persons biological sex, except at the most crude hormonal and anatomical level. Sex differences between males and females are pervasive genetically, through to physiologically, and anatomically (and not just secondary sex characteristics- everything from skeletal muscle type, bone density, kidney volume distribution, etc pretty much every part of the body has sex based differences), to clinically (much if not most pathology and diseases have sex-biases and present differently). 

Even a pre pubertal biological female, given puberty blockers, then testosterone, having their breast tissue surgically removed and a ‘penis’ surgically created out of tissue from other body regions, does not ‘become’ a male medically. And the person has of course been made infertile and will have lifelong sexual dysfunction, and may well also have physical side effects of the medical and surgical treatments (such as osteoporosis, growth retardation, significant scarring etc).

Maybe for some people the modification of the body like this is the best way to treat the psychological distress. Maybe for others, psychological therapy without medical intervention would be best. We just don’t yet know what works best for most yet.

We do know that adolescents (people aged between 10 and 19 years) are already undergoing a period of physical sexual maturation and psychological adaptation. This has long been recognised as a challenging time psychologically for many. We also know that the brain is changing rapidly, and adolescence is a time of differing risk assessment of likely outcomes of behaviours to adults, and heightened vulnerability to risk behaviour. Delaying these processes using puberty blockers will of course effect a young persons physical, psychological, neuro developmental, and psychosexual development.

These are enormously complex decisions. For adults, let alone children. Medicine must be very careful when deciding whether to act. The omission of action can of course also harm, but first, _first_, do no harm.


----------



## Border Reiver (Apr 6, 2021)

Edie said:


> I will say this. There are no ‘experts’, other than trans people on their lived experience. There are only theories about what causes some people to experience their physical body as at odds with their psychological perception of themselves.
> 
> The idea that gender is an ‘essence’ that exists as something separate to biological sex, something that should be discovered by an individual during life rather than ‘assigned’ at birth, is an explanation but it is not a fact. And it cannot be proven or disproven by science. Any more than the idea put forward in the article that littlebabyjesus linked to, that gender dysphoria is linked to the traumatic separation from the primary caregiver (mother). These are psychological theories which are not amenable to scientific proof.
> 
> ...


The problem is that harm can be done both by offering treatment and by withholding treatment. The adage "First do no harm" is not an active part of modern medical ethics which recognises any intervention or lack of intervention can have desired and undesired consequences.


----------



## Border Reiver (Apr 6, 2021)

Border Reiver said:


> The problem is that harm can be done both by offering treatment and by withholding treatment. The adage "First do no harm" is not an active part of modern medical ethics which recognises any intervention or lack of intervention can have desired and undesired consequences.


As a social construct, gender may correlate with biological sex but is not caused by it. All identities are negotiated between the person and the society. That is what "construction" means. This applies to all identities, nationality, occupational, sexuality, group membership, etc, not just gender.


----------



## kabbes (Apr 6, 2021)

And herein is the complication too, because like all social constructs, they exist in terms of social practices as well as personal affect.  Whether you use a social representation theoretical approach, a discourse analytical approach, a psychosocial approach, a social identity approach or any other way of understanding the psycho-social interface, you have to include the two-way nature of the construction, both the agentic and the socially determined.


----------



## Knotted (Apr 6, 2021)

I think as far as these medical matters are concerned, it's sensible for laypeople to take the view of the majority of experts. I'm getting a bit of a "vaccines cause autism" vibe about all this. Cautious scientific uncertainty is not an excuse for a free for all.


----------



## Santino (Apr 6, 2021)

Knotted said:


> I think as far as these medical matters are concerned, it's sensible for laypeople to take the view of the majority of experts. I'm getting a bit of a "vaccines cause autism" vibe about all this. Cautious scientific uncertainty is not an excuse for a free for all.


We can't have this debate because it's too damaging. Also, you lot are just like those idiotic vaccine sceptics. I am very wise and kind.


----------



## Knotted (Apr 6, 2021)

Santino said:


> We can't have this debate because it's too damaging. Also, you lot are just like those idiotic vaccine sceptics. I am very wise and kind.



Debate what you like. I don't have any problem with eg. posting the Marcus Evans piece, but it would be responsible to give us proper background on it.


----------



## Knotted (Apr 6, 2021)

And good grief. The whole petty your side, my side thing again and on tricky scientific questions. What has happened to this place?


----------



## Santino (Apr 6, 2021)

Knotted said:


> And good grief. The whole petty your side, my side thing again and on tricky scientific questions. What has happened to this place?


You're the one smearing the 'other side'! You've been doing it for the whole thread!


----------



## Knotted (Apr 6, 2021)

Like I said on the other thread, it's probably best if you start treating people like individuals rather than ciphers for some collective.


----------



## Santino (Apr 6, 2021)

Knotted said:


> Like I said on the other thread, it's probably best if you start treating people like individuals rather than ciphers for some collective.


Even sly gendercritters who aren't even real feminists?


----------



## Edie (Apr 6, 2021)

Good article by Owen Jones here, warning about the similarities between transphobia and homophobia 









						Transphobia was always going to end up as crude, old-fashioned homophobia
					

Why does anyone want to be a parent, with all the stress, exhaustion, and often thankless turmoil it can entail? A simple answer is a very…




					owenjones84.medium.com


----------



## Knotted (Apr 6, 2021)

Santino said:


> Even sly gendercritters who aren't even real feminists?



Indeed they're dreadful. Individually. Posey Parker is one of the worst individuals, and I recognise that it wouldn't be fair to lump say Julie Bindel in with her, while recognising the problems with the latter.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Apr 6, 2021)

Knotted said:


> Debate what you like. I don't have any problem with eg. posting the Marcus Evans piece, but it would be responsible to give us proper background on it.


He is a psychoanalyst who was a governor of the Tavistock but resigned a couple of years ago. The article is an explanation from him of why he resigned. I gave that bare bones background and nothing more as I didn't want to get involved in a new raft of discussion. 'It's complicated' would be my summary of the ethics of medical treatment for young people with gender dysphoria. This article I think gives  insight into some of that complication. I don't necessarily buy all of his psychoanalytical ideas about GD - just as an endocrinologist is likely to see everything as a hormone problem, so a psychoanalyst is likely to see everything as a problem rooted in Freudian ideas about attachment - but I also didn't particularly see the need for me to signpost that. 

Normally, as I said, I would quote a couple of bits to show why I was linking to it. The idea that it's not _responsible_ to post it without adding more is weird, though. Are these dangerous ideas or something?


----------



## Knotted (Apr 6, 2021)

I think given how politicised this all is and given how much information there is to digest, it's probably best to summarise where he stands in the debate among the professionals.


----------



## teuchter (Apr 6, 2021)

Reading these threads on here and making an attempt to understand them is the closest I feel I'll ever get to understanding the parts of this issue that involve different views from the ones that I generally have access to in "real" life. It's the closest I'll ever get to finding answers to questions that I remain unwilling to ask.


----------



## 8ball (Apr 6, 2021)

Edie said:


> Medicine must be very careful when deciding whether to act. The omission of action can of course also harm, but first, _first_, do no harm.



Let me know if I’m misreading anything, but taking it on face value, no, medicine does not work quite like this.  
It works by assessing a balance of risks and harms, and having been harmed by a couple of life saving operations in the past, I’m pretty grateful that it works this way.


----------



## Edie (Apr 6, 2021)

8ball said:


> Let me know if I’m misreading anything, but taking it on face value, no, medicine does not work quite like this.
> It works by assessing a balance of risks and harms, and having been harmed by a couple of life saving operations in the past, I’m pretty grateful that it works this way.


You are misunderstanding. The four pillars of medical ethics remain: Beneficence (doing good), Non-maleficence (to do no harm), Autonomy (giving the patient the freedom to choose freely, where they are able), Justice (ensuring fairness).

Non-maleficence, or "given an existing problem, it may be better not to do something, or even to do nothing, than to risk causing more harm than good” is still considered the first pillar to consider. In fact, in much of surgery and medicine, it is better to do nothing than something and watchful waiting and conservative treatment is often considered prudent and wise. Risk/benefit discussion is one way in which the pillars of medical ethics of beneficence and non-maleficence are considered, and links to capacitous consent and autonomy in patient discussions. I’m afraid to suggest that non-maleficence is no longer relevant to medical ethics is just incorrect.


----------



## 8ball (Apr 6, 2021)

Edie said:


> I’m afraid to suggest that non-maleficence is no longer relevant to medical ethics is just incorrect.



I didn’t do that, it seems you didn’t understand my post.  Also, _risking_ doing more harm than good is something that happens all the time, depending on an assessment of severity and likelihood of risk.

Right now I’m waiting for another operation, the decision of when to operate is based on their assessment of when the aneurysm becomes more likely to kill me than the operation (I forget the precise period of time this calculation is based on).  This is a clear case of “risking doing more harm than good”.  Where taking the risk is judged favourable, it is taken (I’m assuming matters of consent to be obvious).


----------



## Edie (Apr 6, 2021)

8ball said:


> I didn’t do that, it seems you didn’t understand my post.  Also, _risking_ doing more harm than good is something that happens all the time, depending on an assessment of severity and likelihood of risk.
> 
> Right now I’m waiting for another operation, the decision of when to operate is based on their assessment of when the aneurysm becomes more likely to kill me than the operation (I forget the precise period of time this calculation is based on).  This is a clear case of “risking doing more harm than good”.  Where taking the risk is judged favourable, it is taken (I’m assuming matters of consent to be obvious).


Omg do you have a brain aneurysm?! I’ve just (literally week before last) had neurosurgery for an 8mm left sided ICA aneurysm that was stretching my left optic nerve and causing visual changes. Scary stuff. Good luck xx


----------



## 8ball (Apr 6, 2021)

Edie said:


> Omg do you have a brain aneurysm?! I’ve just (literally week before last) had neurosurgery for an 8mm left sided ICA aneurysm that was stretching my left optic nerve and causing visual changes. Scary stuff. Good luck xx



Shit.  Hope you’re doing ok.  

No, I have an ascending aortic aneurysm.  Has been stable for a long time, kind of sits at the size they’d usually operate but since it’s not changing I just get an annual dose of rads from the CT scanner.  So far, so good...


----------



## Border Reiver (Apr 6, 2021)

littlebabyjesus said:


> He is a psychoanalyst who was a governor of the Tavistock but resigned a couple of years ago. The article is an explanation from him of why he resigned. I gave that bare bones background and nothing more as I didn't want to get involved in a new raft of discussion. 'It's complicated' would be my summary of the ethics of medical treatment for young people with gender dysphoria. This article I think gives  insight into some of that complication. I don't necessarily buy all of his psychoanalytical ideas about GD - just as an endocrinologist is likely to see everything as a hormone problem, so a psychoanalyst is likely to see everything as a problem rooted in Freudian ideas about attachment - but I also didn't particularly see the need for me to signpost that.
> 
> Normally, as I said, I would quote a couple of bits to show why I was linking to it. The idea that it's not _responsible_ to post it without adding more is weird, though. Are these dangerous ideas or something?


It requires context. His views are held by a tiny minority of clinicians and by no real medical authority.


----------



## bimble (Apr 6, 2021)

Border Reiver said:


> It requires context. His views are held by a tiny minority of clinicians and by no real medical authority.


Maybe not all that tiny really, if he's telling the truth about how one fifth of the staff at the Tavistock GIDS service grouped together to announce that they too had 'grave ethical concerns' about the service that their own workplace was providing?


----------



## Border Reiver (Apr 6, 2021)

bimble said:


> Maybe not all that tiny really, if he's telling the truth about how one fifth of the staff at the Tavistock GIDS service grouped together to announce that they too had 'grave ethical concerns' about the service that their own workplace was providing?



There is no evidence of that save from the coterie of malcontents. The original whistleblower was his wife. It is a turf war with a large imbalance in numbers and seniority. Ma h of their stories were generalists on rotation and not permanent staff.

Their intention to limit trans rights has largely failed and matters should soon return to normal. If people do not agree with the treatment protocols and the established legal and ethical guidelines, there are many other areas in which they can work.

It has been a painful storm in a teacup. Courts are best kept out of doctor patient discussions.


----------



## littlebabyjesus (Apr 6, 2021)

wow

If it's true you used to work in mental health, BR, you epitomise everything that is wrong with a certain form of narrow-minded psychiatry. The misplaced certainty, the arrogance and overconfidence in your methods, the tunnel vision that completely fails to take into account the social context of mental distress. It's all there. 

And if you don't agree with the rules, you can fuck off. Just wow.


----------



## bimble (Apr 6, 2021)

Border Reiver said:


> It has been a painful storm in a teacup.


well, time will tell. I think the teacup is much bigger than you think it is. I think we'll only know what sort of storm it was when its passed, which (my opinion) won't be for a generation or so.


----------



## Knotted (Apr 6, 2021)

8ball said:


> I didn’t do that, it seems you didn’t understand my post.  Also, _risking_ doing more harm than good is something that happens all the time, depending on an assessment of severity and likelihood of risk.
> 
> Right now I’m waiting for another operation, the decision of when to operate is based on their assessment of when the aneurysm becomes more likely to kill me than the operation (I forget the precise period of time this calculation is based on).  This is a clear case of “risking doing more harm than good”.  Where taking the risk is judged favourable, it is taken (I’m assuming matters of consent to be obvious).



Bloody 'ell mate. By way of example, I might be dying next week...


----------



## Border Reiver (Apr 6, 2021)

bimble said:


> well, time will tell. I think the teacup is much bigger than you think it is. I think we'll only know what sort of storm it was when its passed, which (my opinion) won't be for a generation or so.



Aside from the signatories (many if whom were not permanent staff) where is the evidence of any groundswell of opinion within the appropriate professionals? I know of none.


----------



## kabbes (Apr 6, 2021)

littlebabyjesus said:


> wow
> 
> If it's true you used to work in mental health, BR, you epitomise everything that is wrong with a certain form of narrow-minded psychiatry. The misplaced certainty, the arrogance and overconfidence in your methods, the tunnel vision that completely fails to take into account the social context of mental distress. It's all there.
> 
> And if you don't agree with the rules, you can fuck off. Just wow.


Ironically, it’s the same arrogance that used to sit there telling trans people that they had a mental illness.


----------



## Knotted (Apr 6, 2021)

Following the links in that article it looks fair to call them a coterie of malcontents. I keep seeing the same names and there's definitely ideological/activist connections. That's not to say they're wrong of course. I just want to emphasise that I don't have a bleedin' clue.


----------



## Knotted (Apr 6, 2021)

Also and yes, immediate links to the real actual conversion therapist Kenneth Zucker. Just saying.


----------



## Knotted (Apr 6, 2021)

8ball, I wasn't talking about me. I'm just alarmed about you. Hope everything goes well.


----------



## bimble (Apr 6, 2021)

Border Reiver said:


> Aside from the signatories (many if whom were not permanent staff) where is the evidence of any groundswell of opinion within the appropriate professionals? I know of none.


I did not say that i have evidence of a groundswell _within the appropriate professionals_, you pompous oddball, i just said that in my opinion this isnt a teacup and the storm hasn't, at all, passed.


----------



## bimble (Apr 6, 2021)

kabbes said:


> Ironically, it’s the same arrogance that used to sit there telling trans people that they had a mental illness.


Yes the Professionals may have been wrong then (was that a few months / years ago?) but they remain the only arbiters of immutable Truth now. So thats normal.


----------



## 8ball (Apr 6, 2021)

Knotted said:


> 8ball, I wasn't talking about me. I'm just alarmed about you. Hope everything goes well.



Phew! - was checking your post history to see what was up...


----------



## kabbes (Apr 6, 2021)

bimble said:


> Yes the Professionals may have been wrong then (was that a few months / years ago?) but they remain the only arbiters of immutable Truth now. So thats normal.


And let’s not forget that it was the unimpeachable DSM that so recently listed homosexuality as a mental illness too.


----------



## bimble (Apr 6, 2021)

kabbes said:


> And let’s not forget that it was the unimpeachable DSM that so recently listed homosexuality as a mental illness too.


I'm just grateful that The Professionals no longer think that the most likely cause of any inconvenient behaviours on my part is my womb floating off on walkabout around my body. That was a bit weird but true, obvs, at the time. 
eta Hysteria was still in the DSM, as a diagnosis for women, until 1952, didnt know that.


----------



## kabbes (Apr 6, 2021)

bimble said:


> I'm just grateful that The Professionals no longer think that the most likely cause of any inconvenient behaviours on my part is my womb floating off on walkabout around my body. That was a bit weird but true, obvs, at the time.
> eta Hysteria was still in the DSM, as a diagnosis for women, until 1952, didnt know that.


Wow, I did not know it was still there until 1952!


----------



## smokedout (Apr 6, 2021)

littlebabyjesus said:


> He is a psychoanalyst who was a governor of the Tavistock but resigned a couple of years ago. The article is an explanation from him of why he resigned. I gave that bare bones background and nothing more as I didn't want to get involved in a new raft of discussion. 'It's complicated' would be my summary of the ethics of medical treatment for young people with gender dysphoria. This article I think gives  insight into some of that complication. I don't necessarily buy all of his psychoanalytical ideas about GD - just as an endocrinologist is likely to see everything as a hormone problem, so a psychoanalyst is likely to see everything as a problem rooted in Freudian ideas about attachment - but I also didn't particularly see the need for me to signpost that.
> 
> Normally, as I said, I would quote a couple of bits to show why I was linking to it. The idea that it's not _responsible_ to post it without adding more is weird, though. Are these dangerous ideas or something?



No, just a lot of it isn't true, or only tells half the story, and so it gives an entirely misleading representation of the situation.


----------



## 8ball (Apr 6, 2021)

smokedout said:


> No, just a lot of it isn't true, or only tells half the story, and so it gives an entirely misleading representation of the situation.



Is there somewhere free of the poisoned well effect where people could generally go if they wanted information about the general state of affairs, internationally speaking?

Would be useful for some of those “what do you think of this?” IRL convs which have begun to come along a bit.


----------



## teuchter (Apr 6, 2021)

8ball said:


> Is there somewhere free of the poisoned well effect where people could generally go if they wanted information about the general state of affairs,


If there's one thing that's clear about all this, it seems to be that the answer to this question is "no".


----------



## smokedout (Apr 6, 2021)

bimble said:


> Maybe not all that tiny really, if he's telling the truth about how one fifth of the staff at the Tavistock GIDS service grouped together to announce that they too had 'grave ethical concerns' about the service that their own workplace was providing?



It was well known to both trans kids and their parents that there was a group of clinicians at the Tavistock who opposed transition and were dogmatically committed to psycho-therapeutic solutions.  This has always been one of the key areas of practice at the Tavistock and it's only because of the legacy of being trans being seen as a mental health disorder that they ended up running GIDS.  And anyone who has ever come across Freudian psychoanalysts will know how hard they defend their dicipline, I suspect because its evidential foundations are so weak.

But the fact is when you step outside of the Tavistock, and this handful of anonymous clinicians, there are thousands of clinicians delivering this kind of treatment and seeing successful results every day all over the world.  And puberty blockers have been used since the mid 90s, even in the UK in some cases.  There is a global medical consensus that supports this treatment when gender dysphoria is consistent, insistent and persists into the early stages of puberty - even outliers like Kenneth Zucker agree.

It's worth remembering that it came out in Keira's case that out of about nearly 3000 referrals to the Tavistock just 161 were referred for blockers.  Even amongst the most dysphoric trans kids - because most will never get near the Tavistock - this treatment is very rare.  These young people are exceptional, in great distress, often self-harming and have quite often lived in their aquired gender for many years.  Doing nothing is not a neutral act.  They have undergone extensive assessment, their parents and doctors agree on the treatment, and as far as we know Keira Bell is the only one who has expressed regret - and the details of her treatment are disputed by the Tavistock.  He's not someone I'm likely to cite often but I agree with Jolyon Maugham who worked on the most recent case, what can a Judge bring to the table in cases like these.


----------



## smokedout (Apr 6, 2021)

8ball said:


> Is there somewhere free of the poisoned well effect where people could generally go if they wanted information about the general state of affairs, internationally speaking?
> 
> Would be useful for some of those “what do you think of this?” IRL convs which have begun to come along a bit.



Well if you want medical opinion then pretty much any paediatric medical body in any comparable country, or WPATH, the Endocrine Society or even GIDS themselves.


----------



## smokedout (Apr 6, 2021)

kabbes said:


> Ironically, it’s the same arrogance that used to sit there telling trans people that they had a mental illness.



And ironically it's those opposed to any form of medical treatment who are still telling trans people they have a mental illness.  Thankfully most of medicine has moved on.


----------



## 8ball (Apr 6, 2021)

smokedout said:


> Well if you want medical opinion then pretty much any paediatric medical body in any comparable country, or WPATH, the Endocrine Society or even GIDS themselves.



WPATH link is useful, thanks.    As is the link to the conversation with Jolyon Maugham.


----------



## Border Reiver (Apr 6, 2021)

bimble said:


> I did not say that i have evidence of a groundswell _within the appropriate professionals_, you pompous oddball, i just said that in my opinion this isnt a teacup and the storm hasn't, at all, passed.


Given that the law and medical ethics have recently reinforced the legal and clinical appropriateness of prescription of puberty blockers being a matter beyond the courts and professionally acceptable with simple adult or parental consent, there is little wriggle room for change of practice.

You do seem to have difficulty debating without using rather childish abuse.


----------



## bimble (Apr 6, 2021)

Border Reiver said:


> You do seem to have difficulty debating without using rather childish abuse.
> 
> ced


I suggest you pop me onto your ignore list Ced.


----------



## Border Reiver (Apr 6, 2021)

littlebabyjesus said:


> wow
> 
> If it's true you used to work in mental health, BR, you epitomise everything that is wrong with a certain form of narrow-minded psychiatry. The misplaced certainty, the arrogance and overconfidence in your methods, the tunnel vision that completely fails to take into account the social context of mental distress. It's all there.
> 
> And if you don't agree with the rules, you can fuck off. Just wow.


You are very wrong. My roots are in the anti-psychiatry movements of the sixties and seventies. I ran units based on Therapeutic Community principles.   I am not necessarily supporting DSM and such. But that is the context of NHS Psychiatry. You seem to make doubtful knee-jerk reactions.


----------



## Border Reiver (Apr 6, 2021)

bimble said:


> I suggest you pop me onto your ignore list Ced.


You just came off it.


----------



## kabbes (Apr 6, 2021)

Border Reiver said:


> You are very wrong. My roots are in the anti-psychiatry movements of the sixties and seventies. I ran units based on Therapeutic Community principles.   I am not necessarily supporting DSM and such. But that is the context of NHS Psychiatry. You seem to make doubtful knee-jerk reactions.


You’re the one basing your statements about psychological phenomena on what the DSM says.  Somebody founded in anti-psychiatry should view the very existence of that manual as anathema.


----------



## Border Reiver (Apr 6, 2021)

bimble said:


> I suggest you pop me onto your ignore list Ced.



The issue here is civil rights, not medicical practice. 

Why should a third party have any standing in deciding the medical treatment offered by a medical practitioner with informed consent from the patient or guardian? Same answer as any other such medical decision.

Consent to termination of pregnancy is analogous.


----------



## Shechemite (Apr 6, 2021)

Border Reiver said:


> You are very wrong. My roots are in the anti-psychiatry movements of the sixties and seventies.



movements well known for their top notch safeguarding practices


----------



## A380 (Apr 6, 2021)

littlebabyjesus said:


> wow
> 
> If it's true you used to work in mental health, BR, you epitomise everything that is wrong with a certain form of narrow-minded psychiatry. The misplaced certainty, the arrogance and overconfidence in your methods, the tunnel vision that completely fails to take into account the social context of mental distress. It's all there.
> 
> And if you don't agree with the rules, you can fuck off. Just wow.





bimble said:


> I suggest you pop me onto your ignore list Ced.



Lay bets on which of you ‘gets ignored’ first...


----------



## Border Reiver (Apr 6, 2021)

MadeInBedlam said:


> movements well known for their top notch safeguarding practices


Before I trained and qualified. I worked within legal and medical guidelines after that. I seem to be being accused of being too medical model and too anti-psychiatry at the same time. I am simply advocating for patient's rights and against political axe grinders interfering in their treatment.


----------



## bimble (Apr 6, 2021)

Border Reiver said:


> I am simply advocating for patient's rights and against political axe grinders interfering in their treatment.


Its as if you think that medicine itself, treatments and diagnoses (whatever they may be at given time and place) are somehow non-political, that all the politics goes on outside the hallowed doors. Thats peculiar.


----------



## Border Reiver (Apr 6, 2021)

bimble said:


> Its as if you think that medicine itself, treatments and diagnoses (whatever they may be at given time and place) are somehow non-political, that all the politics goes on outside the hallowed doors. Thats peculiar.


I did not say that. You do seem to have a problem with logical inference.

If a person (or their guardian) wish to consult a doctor about a medical issue why should any other person or body interfere in that decision? What could possibly override such personal autonomy?


----------



## bimble (Apr 6, 2021)

Border Reiver said:


> I did not say that. You do seem to have a problem with logical inference.
> 
> If a person (or their guardian) wish to consult a doctor about a medical issue why should any other person or body interfere in that decision? What could possibly override such personal autonomy?


We are not talking about the same thing at all. I'm not interested in stopping anyone from seeking help. 
As said before, mostly I just hope I live long enough to see where this is all at in say 15-20 years from now, what will have been learnt by then, what will have changed both in terms of treatment norms and the whole way we think about this issue. You will presumably be about 90 by then though.


----------



## 8ball (Apr 6, 2021)

bimble said:


> As said before, mostly I just hope I live long enough to see where this is all at in say 15-20 years from now, what will have been learnt by then, what will have changed both in terms of treatment norms and the whole way we think about this issue.



I think some posters on this thread mentioned they know some future historians.


----------



## Border Reiver (Apr 6, 2021)

bimble said:


> We are not talking about the same thing at all. I'm not interested in stopping anyone from seeking help.
> As said before, mostly I just hope I live long enough to see where this is all at in say 15-20 years from now, what will have been learnt by then, what will have changed both in terms of treatment norms and the whole way we think about this issue. You will presumably be about 90 by then though.


So you have been arguing for the sake of it. How sad. My point is about rights, which are not going to change in 15-20 years. No other medical decision admits third party intervention except those regarding the start or end of life. And medical ethics on this subject are very unlikely to change in a generation.


----------



## smokedout (Apr 6, 2021)

One of the interesting, if that's the word, things about the debate on treating trans kids is how out of step the perceptions of risk are with other forms of treatment or activities.  GIDS and gender services are not seeing a flood of transitioners, or even any at all.  A large study of those who had treatment in the UK found that out of 3398 patients only 16 experienced regret or detranisioned.  Of those ten detransitioned then later re-transitioned, and only three, less than 0.1% remained detransitioned - and some of this regret was down to social factor not the process of transition itself.  These are astonishingly successful figures for satisfaction with a medical procedure.

Every time a kid is placed under anaesthetic there is a risk of complications and even death, and not all surgery is clinically imperative.  We give medicines to children all the time which can have serious side effects in some cases, and not just for physical conditions.  The contraceptive pill can impact on bone density, sex can obviously have lifelong consequences and we permit that from 16 and recognise the reality that many young people may do it sooner - and make legal accommodations for that such as Gillick.  Lots of kids start drinking at home around 15/16, many kids play dangerous sports with real risks of life changing injuries, we let people drive from 17.  We even give the exact same drugs to children with precocious puberty that are prescribed to some trans kids and there is no clinically vital reason to do that in a lot of cases except that it reduces social discomfort or allow kids chance to grow taller.  In every area of life, especially medicine, there is an element of risk, yet the risks of regret from transition - and remember no-one has hormones until 16 in the UK or surgery before 18 - are presented as worse than the risk of death it often seems - something touched on in the recent court case.  I think like so much of this debate there is a lot going on beneath the surface that has little to do with evidence or objective assessments.


----------



## smokedout (Apr 6, 2021)

Fucked the above post up.  I meant to add I thinkwhat's going on is an unspoken limbic horror at the thought of having sexual characteristics that don't match your birth sex or gender identity - and I don't think it's any surprise that so much of the focus is on those born phsycially female, who are said to mutilate their bodies by many gender critical people - and a lot of gender critical men.  Almost as if a woman (as they see it) making herself unattractive to men or infertile is the greatest social horror that can be imagined - worse even than death itself - and so it must be banned, even if that leaves people living lives of unnecesssary suffering.


----------



## 8ball (Apr 6, 2021)

I thought almost all of the focus was generally on those born physically male. 

The sports thing, the endless bathrooms thing, the prisons stuff... pretty much everything.

If you mean the clinics, I thought people had focused on that because of big recent changes in numbers referred.  Aside from that, trans men seem generally mentioned little.


----------



## teuchter (Apr 6, 2021)

smokedout said:


> Fucked the above post up.  I meant to add I thinkwhat's going on is an unspoken limbic horror at the thought of having sexual characteristics that don't match your birth sex or gender identity - and I don't think it's any surprise that so much of the focus is on those born phsycially female, who are said to mutilate their bodies by many gender critical people - and a lot of gender critical men.  Almost as if a woman (as they see it) making herself unattractive to men or infertile is the greatest social horror that can be imagined - worse even than death itself - and so it must be banned, even if that leaves people living lives of unnecesssary suffering.


I can go along with pretty much everything you say in the post above this one - but then you move entirely to your speculations about what's going on in other people's heads, and then you lose me.

Are you able to define what "gender critical" means - to you, when you use that term? 

I'm trying to understand how someone who doesn't really accept the notion of gender identity could have a limbic horror at someone having sexual characteristics that don't match their gender identity. How can they consider that something "doesn't match" something they don't view as an identifiable thing in the first place?


----------



## bimble (Apr 6, 2021)

Absolutely wild speculation about what’s subconsciously motivating The Other Side is fine. Noted.


----------



## smokedout (Apr 6, 2021)

bimble said:


> Absolutely wild speculation about what’s subconsciously motivating The Other Side is fine. Noted.



Somewhat ironic given the near totality of this debate is wild speculation about what is supposedly subconsciously driving gender transition.

Pages and pages of it on this thread in fact.


----------



## smokedout (Apr 6, 2021)

teuchter said:


> I can go along with pretty much everything you say in the post above this one - but then you move entirely to your speculations about what's going on in other people's heads, and then you lose me.
> 
> Are you able to define what "gender critical" means - to you, when you use that term?



By gender critical as I've said many times I mean those in the movement which self identifies as gender critical and is actively campaigning against trans rights/healthcare.



> I'm trying to understand how someone who doesn't really accept the notion of gender identity could have a limbic horror at someone having sexual characteristics that don't match their gender identity. How can they consider that something "doesn't match" something they don't view as an identifiable thing in the first place?



It's hardly controversial to consider whether unconscious biases and prejudices may have a role to play in underpinning someone's political or intellectual position - especially when that position targets a minority as in this case.  And to be honest, seeing Glinner rant on and on about poor mutilated girls and gender critical dad railing against the healthcare his now 25 year old (and seemingly happy but alienated from his family) trans son received that destroyed his precious daughter then I think it's more than reasonable to suggest there may be some patriarchal forces at play,  Men have been trying to control women's bodies for centuries - for a woman to transition to male is surely the ultimate blasphemy that must be prevented at all costs.


----------



## smokedout (Apr 6, 2021)

8ball said:


> I thought almost all of the focus was generally on those born physically male.
> 
> The sports thing, the endless bathrooms thing, the prisons stuff... pretty much everything.
> 
> If you mean the clinics, I thought people had focused on that because of big recent changes in numbers referred.  Aside from that, trans men seem generally mentioned little.



Sorry I was referring specifically to trans healthcare, I agree about the rest.  I think the rise in numbers is part of the story, but I don;t think that's the  reason gender critical activists are demonstrating outside events for trans kids and gender clinics with placards showing surgical and post surgery photographs of what they call mutilated women (meaning trans men).


----------



## 8ball (Apr 6, 2021)

smokedout said:


> Sorry I was referring specifically to trans healthcare, I agree about the rest.  I think the rise in numbers is part of the story, but I don;t think that's the  reason gender critical activists are demonstrating outside events for trans kids and gender clinics with placards showing surgical and post surgery photographs of what they call mutilated women (meaning trans men).



Gotcha. I think that’s largely playing the numbers game.  They’d be going for some kind of ‘body shock’ vibe whatever.  A trick picked up from anti-abortionists.


----------



## Yossarian (Apr 6, 2021)

Fucking troglodyte lawmakers in Arkansas just made theirs the first state to ban treatments for trans youth.









						Arkansas lawmakers enact transgender youth treatment ban
					

Hutchinson vetoed the bill following pleas from pediatricians, social workers and the parents of transgender youth who said the measure would harm a community already at risk for depression and suicide.



					www.wbtv.com


----------



## SpackleFrog (Apr 7, 2021)

Yossarian said:


> Fucking troglodyte lawmakers in Arkansas just made theirs the first state to ban treatments for trans youth.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Have had a sit back and been reading for a couple of days. I didn't know there was a specific thread for discussion of this issue - would be interested to know which one. 

I think this is the reason that we can't have a moratorium on discussing trans issues - because we're living through attacks on trans people and it wouldn't be Urban anymore if we just ignored them. 

I think this post says a lot when you compare it to the OP - which seems more important, someone being banned from twitter or trans children being banned from accessing health care?


----------



## Border Reiver (Apr 7, 2021)

SpackleFrog said:


> Have had a sit back and been reading for a couple of days. I didn't know there was a specific thread for discussion of this issue - would be interested to know which one.
> 
> I think this is the reason that we can't have a moratorium on discussing trans issues - because we're living through attacks on trans people and it wouldn't be Urban anymore if we just ignored them.
> 
> I think this post says a lot when you compare it to the OP - which seems more important, someone being banned from twitter or trans children being banned from accessing health care?


That has been my point. Denial of rights, not medicine itself.


----------



## smokedout (Apr 7, 2021)

SpackleFrog said:


> I think this post says a lot when you compare it to the OP - which seems more important, someone being banned from twitter or trans children being banned from accessing health care?



Well presumably there are some on this thread who would support a similar law being introduced here.


----------



## teuchter (Apr 7, 2021)

smokedout said:


> By gender critical as I've said many times I mean those in the movement which self identifies as gender critical and is actively campaigning against trans rights/healthcare.


Is there a correct term for someone who does not subscribe to the concept of gender identity, but does not object in principle to medical interventions for gender dysphoria, and does not campaign against trans rights or healthcare?

Or is it your view that such a person cannot exist, because of things that necessarily follow if you reject the concept of gender identity?


----------



## smokedout (Apr 7, 2021)

teuchter said:


> Is there a correct term for someone who does not subscribe to the concept of gender identity, but does not object in principle to medical interventions for gender dysphoria, and does not campaign against trans rights or healthcare?
> 
> Or is it your view that such a person cannot exist, because of things that necessarily follow if you reject the concept of gender identity?



I'm a gender abolitionist myself, so not too far from that position.  I think those in the gender critical movement though would claim such a person can't exist, or more likely that they were a hypocrite or coward.  

It's hardly unusual for there not to be correct terms which perfectly describe every possible combination of views someone might hold, but by all means call yourself gender critical if you want.  Just be aware that there is a self identified movement, with a shared ideology, that calls themselves gender critical and is actively campaigning against trans rights, trans inclusion and trans healthcare, so people will probably assume you are part of that.  Perhaps capital letters would help, Gender Critical, does that make more sense?


----------



## teuchter (Apr 7, 2021)

smokedout said:


> I'm a gender abolitionist myself, so not too far from that position.  I think those in the gender critical movement though would claim such a person can't exist, or more likely that they were a hypocrite or coward.
> 
> It's hardly unusual for there not to be correct terms which perfectly describe every possible combination of views someone might hold, but by all means call yourself gender critical if you want.  Just be aware that there is a self identified movement, with a shared ideology, that calls themselves gender critical and is actively campaigning against trans rights, trans inclusion and trans healthcare, so people will probably assume you are part of that.  Perhaps capital letters would help, Gender Critical, does that make more sense?


I think there may be a significant number of people who would call themselves 'gender critical' (or are confused about whether they fall into that category) who you might consider to be 'gender abolitionist'. 

I suspect, for example, that the woman who is the subject of the OP might be one of those people.

I only follow this issue sporadically, which in the end is what most people probably do, and I had got the impression that 'gender critical' was something people were now using to describe themselves in preference to being labelled TERFs. I may well have got the wrong end of the stick.


----------



## Orang Utan (Apr 7, 2021)

This was mostly a good thread with civilised discussion on it. Things seem to have polarised since though 


			https://www.urban75.net/forums/threads/how-does-the-fight-against-gender-stereotyping-reconcile-itself-with-transgender-issues.323069/


----------



## teuchter (Apr 7, 2021)

I thought I'd google "gender abolitionist" and here's one of the results (I know nothing about the writer; it was simply the second search result after wikipedia)





__





						A gender abolitionist in a non-ideal world
					

It’s not an easy path to tread, being a gender apostate. As a feminist who thinks that female biology is real, that female socialization…




					medium.com
				




That writer seems to consider herself both a 'gender abolitionist' and a 'gender critical feminist'.


----------



## smokedout (Apr 7, 2021)

teuchter said:


> That writer seems to consider herself both a 'gender abolitionist' and a 'gender critical feminist'.



Oh no, I must have imagined the organised well funded movement which calls itself Gender Critical and which is focussed on attacking trans rights, inclusion and healthcare then.  Thank you for helping me realise my silly mistake.


----------



## ElizabethofYork (Apr 7, 2021)

smokedout said:


> Well presumably there are some on this thread who would support a similar law being introduced here.


I hope not.


----------



## teuchter (Apr 7, 2021)

smokedout said:


> Oh no, I must have imagined the organised well funded movement which calls itself Gender Critical and which is focussed on attacking trans rights, inclusion and healthcare then.  Thank you for helping me realise my silly mistake.


I'm attempting to suggest to you that (I think) lots people are confused about these terms, and therefore some people who call themselves gender critical may hold different opinions from the ones that you ascribe to them. And in fact on many matters perhaps they are very much on your side.

If you are unwilling to consider that as a possibility, then yes I think that may be a silly mistake.


----------



## Athos (Apr 7, 2021)

I'm critical of gender (is hard not be given the harm it causes people of both sexes) but, increasingly, I'd think twice before describing myself as 'gender critical', now the label's been (wrongly*) adopted by some dubious individuals and groups.  But I think it's a mistake - because of how polarising and divisive it is - to assume that everyone who describes themselves that way thinks the same, or even realises that many of the others who do are iffy.

*I mean it's ridiculous for, say, conservative Christians to claim that they're critical of gender; many of them are just using it as shorthand for anti-trans.


----------



## smokedout (Apr 7, 2021)

teuchter said:


> I'm attempting to suggest to you that (I think) lots people are confused about these terms, and therefore some people who call themselves gender critical may hold different opinions from the ones that you ascribe to them. And in fact on many matters perhaps they are very much on your side.
> 
> If you are unwilling to consider that as a possibility, then yes I think that may be a silly mistake.



Well they may well do.  Some Conservatives support decent social spending, non traditional families or drugs legalisation.  That doesn't mean Conservatives don't exist or that it is incorrect to use it as a term for a political movement based on a particular type of ideology.

I'm really sorry you are confused, or that everything isn't placed perfectly into boxes for you.  I genuinely feel for you if you are concerned that if you call yourself gender critical then some people might ascribe views to you which you don't hold.  It must be terrible, would you like me to make up a special name for people like you?

However I'm currently a bit more concerned with the well funded organised attack on people like me from a political movement which explicitly names itself Gender Critical which seeks to deny trans people's healthcare, destroy existing trans rights and ultimately to morally mandate trans people out of society. There are many trans people like myself who have criticisms of the way gender identity is often described, or even the term itself, or who are gender abolitionists.  Perhaps that might confuse people about what I believe.  Perhaps I might have to describe my views in a sentence, rather than an acronym or soundbite.  I share your pain brother.  It's just not my priority right now.


----------



## Athos (Apr 7, 2021)

SpackleFrog said:


> I think this post says a lot when you compare it to the OP - which seems more important, someone being banned from twitter or trans children being banned from accessing health care?





smokedout said:


> Well presumably there are some on this thread who would support a similar law being introduced here.


I'd have said the opposite; the reason the new law didn't attract much debate is because nobody here would support it!


----------



## teuchter (Apr 7, 2021)

smokedout said:


> Well they may well do.  Some Conservatives support decent social spending, non traditional families or drugs legalisation.  That doesn't mean Conservatives don't exist or that it is incorrect to use it as a term for a political movement based on a particular type of ideology.
> 
> I'm really sorry you are confused, or that everything isn't placed perfectly into boxes for you.  I genuinely feel for you if you are concerned that if you call yourself gender critical then some people might ascribe views to you which you don't hold.  It must be terrible, would you like me to make up a special name for people like you?
> 
> However I'm currently a bit more concerned with the well funded organised attack on people like me from a political movement which explicitly names itself Gender Critical which seeks to deny trans people's healthcare, destroy existing trans rights and ultimately to morally mandate trans people out of society. There are many trans people like myself who have criticisms of the way gender identity is often described, or even the term itself, or who are gender abolitionists.  Perhaps that might confuse people about what I believe.  Perhaps I might have to describe my views in a sentence, rather than an acronym or soundbite.  I share your pain brother.  It's just not my priority right now.



This is not about my views or about how you define or describe your views. I am trying to say that I think that many people who you seem to assume are in opposition to you or seeking to attack your rights, are neither of those.

This is what is happening on both "sides" of this - assumptions about what motivates apparently opposing viewpoints.


----------



## smokedout (Apr 7, 2021)

teuchter said:


> This is not about my views or about how you define or describe your views. I am trying to say that I think that many people who you seem to assume are in opposition to you or seeking to attack your rights, are neither of those.
> 
> This is what is happening on both "sides" of this - assumptions about what motivates apparently opposing viewpoints.



How do you know who I assume is in opposition to me? I am critical of gender, so are probably most trans people - and in fact for a long time I was reluctant to name the anti-trans movement Gender Critical on those grounds.  But that's what they call themselves and sorry I'm not going to say Gender Critical except teuchter and anyone who is critical of gender but supports trans rights because that would be fucking ridiculous.  If someone articulates they support trans rights they are clearly not in opposition to me.  If someone describes themselves as gender critical but supportive of trans rights they are not in opposition to me.  If someone describes themselves as gender critical and starts ranting on about mutilated bodies or trans people erasing gays and lesbians then they probably are in opposition to me.  I don't actually find it very difficult, I don't really understand why you do or what purpose it serves to try and deny trans people from being able to name the movement that is opposed to us.  In fact I think it is you who is making assumptions about what I believe or how I might categorise someone's views.


----------



## Border Reiver (Apr 7, 2021)

What do you call someone who believes that race does not exist and any claim to being in a particular race should not be legally recognised?


----------



## hitmouse (Apr 7, 2021)

Border Reiver said:


> What do you call someone who believes that race does not exist and any claim to being in a particular race should not be legally recognised?


In the context of a thread about trans issues, I'd probably call them "derailing the thread".


----------



## Border Reiver (Apr 7, 2021)

hitmouse said:


> In the context of a thread about trans issues, I'd probably call them "derailing the thread".


Alternatively "thinking outside the box". 

Are you really suggesting that discrimination against trans people can not be considered in comparison to discrimination against other social groups. Discrimination is discrimination using exactly the same mechanisms in every case.


----------



## hitmouse (Apr 7, 2021)

Border Reiver said:


> Alternatively "thinking outside the box".
> 
> Are you really suggesting that discrimination against trans people can not be considered in comparison to discrimination against other social groups. Discrimination is discrimination using exactly the same mechanisms in every case.


I think sometimes some analogies are helpful and sometimes some analogies aren't. I'm a big fan of a good analogy myself, but there's plenty of ones that are unhelpful - for instance, the "trans-racial" comparison made in the text posted in the OP.


----------



## A380 (Apr 7, 2021)

Border Reiver said:


> What do you call someone who believes that race does not exist and any claim to being in a particular race should not be legally recognised?



I don’t know, what do you call someone who believes that race does not exist and any claim to being in a particular race should not be legally recognised?


----------



## Raheem (Apr 7, 2021)

A380 said:


> I don’t know, what do you call someone who believes that race does not exist and any claim to being in a particular race should not be legally recognised?


Doug.


----------



## hitmouse (Apr 7, 2021)

Yossarian said:


> Fucking troglodyte lawmakers in Arkansas just made theirs the first state to ban treatments for trans youth.


North Carolina getting in on the trend as well: N.C. bill would ban treatment for trans people under 21


> Senate Bill 514 would also compel state employees to immediately notify parents in writing if their child displays “gender nonconformity” or expresses a desire to be treated in a way that is incompatible with the gender they were assigned at birth. LGBTQ advocates fear the bill would out people under 21 who tell state workers that they may be transgender.


Full text of the bill is here, if anyone wants to check for themselves: https://ncleg.gov/Sessions/2021/Bills/Senate/PDF/S514v0.pdf

But aye, the real danger to gender non-conforming youth is definitely the hordes of people rushing to tell them that they must be trans and they need to have surgery right away, that's definitely the real problem here.


----------



## SpackleFrog (Apr 7, 2021)

Athos said:


> I'd have said the opposite; the reason the new law didn't attract much debate is because nobody here would support it!



My point was that some of the views that have been expressed on this thread are fuelling actual real life attacks on trans rights, whether the proponents of those views accept that or not and whether they would agree with those attacks or not. Although for clarity, I think its pretty obvious that some people on this thread do agree with the Republicans in Arkansaw that trans healthcare for miners should be banned.


----------



## Athos (Apr 7, 2021)

Border Reiver said:


> What do you call someone who believes that race does not exist and any claim to being in a particular race should not be legally recognised?



Are you seriously trying to suggest that someone who objects to a white person being legally recognised as black is a racist?


----------



## Athos (Apr 7, 2021)

SpackleFrog said:


> My point was that some of the views that have been expressed on this thread are fuelling actual real life attacks on trans rights, whether the proponents of those views accept that or not and whether they would agree with those attacks or not. Although for clarity, I think its pretty obvious that some people on this thread do agree with the Republicans in Arkansaw that trans healthcare for miners should be banned.



I don't think anyone here has supported anything as extreme as what's happened in Arkansas.


----------



## SpackleFrog (Apr 7, 2021)

Athos said:


> I don't think anyone here has supported anything as extreme as what's happened in Arkansas.



Posters have said quite explicitly that minors can't consent to treatment. The ruling in the Keira Bell case effectively bans treatment for minors - certainly minors who can't afford to get a court order.

These things are linked. It isn't separate.


----------



## Athos (Apr 7, 2021)

SpackleFrog said:


> Posters have said quite explicitly that minors can't consent to treatment. The ruling in the Keira Bell case effectively bans treatment for minors - certainly minors who can't afford to get a court order.
> 
> These things are linked. It isn't separate.



The Bell judgement applies to under-16s, and the Arkansas law to under-18s; the Bell judgement doesn't prevent treatment based on parental consent alone, whereas the Arkansas law does; and, the Bell judgement doesn't prevent referral for other treatments, but the Arkansas law does.  I think the Bell judgement was wrong, but it's nowhere near as bad as what's happening in Arkansas.  As far as I can tell, even those here who have concerns about under-16s being given this treatment (which is experimental, and which recent evidence suggests is less effective and more risky than previously thought) don't seem to be going as far as Arkansas.


----------



## SpackleFrog (Apr 7, 2021)

Athos said:


> The Bell judgement applies to under-16s, and the Arkansas law to under-18s; the Bell judgement doesn't prevent treatment based on parental consent alone, whereas the Arkansas law does; and, the Bell judgement doesn't prevent referral for other treatments, but the Arkansas law does.  I think the Bell judgement was wrong, but it's nowhere near as bad as what's happening in Arkansas.  As far as I can tell, even those here who have concerns about under-16s being given this treatment (which is experimental, and which recent evidence suggests is less effective and more risky than previously thought) don't seem to be going as far as Arkansas.



I don't think its much of a jump from u-16's to u-18's and I don't share your faith but fair enough


----------



## Border Reiver (Apr 7, 2021)

hitmouse said:


> I think sometimes some analogies are helpful and sometimes some analogies aren't. I'm a big fan of a good analogy myself, but there's plenty of ones that are unhelpful - for instance, the "trans-racial" comparison made in the text posted in the OP.


That is because that is about  between self identification.

But my example is directly analogous as it is about discrimination not identification.


----------



## Athos (Apr 7, 2021)

SpackleFrog said:


> I don't think its much of a jump from u-16's to u-18's and I don't share your faith but fair enough



Fair enough.  Whilst still important, it is the least significant of the three differences.


----------



## 8ball (Apr 7, 2021)

hitmouse said:


> In the context of a thread about trans issues, I'd probably call them "derailing the thread".



Fortunately, the offending post wasn’t on that thread.


----------



## Border Reiver (Apr 7, 2021)

SpackleFrog said:


> Posters have said quite explicitly that minors can't consent to treatment. The ruling in the Keira Bell case effectively bans treatment for minors - certainly minors who can't afford to get a court order.
> 
> These things are linked. It isn't separate.I


A later case confirmed that only consent by minors alone is doubtful. Consent by parents is lawful as it has always been. Additionally persons currently being treated are not affected. Only a literal handful of current cases are being appealed in June. Very few parents oppose treatment when properly consented- in fact parents are often the main proponents for treatment.

It is a storm in a teacup.


----------



## smokedout (Apr 7, 2021)

SpackleFrog said:


> Posters have said quite explicitly that minors can't consent to treatment. The ruling in the Keira Bell case effectively bans treatment for minors - certainly minors who can't afford to get a court order.
> 
> These things are linked. It isn't separate.



As are the bills in Arkansas and North Carolina.  The contents of these bills were heavily influenced by a joint document put out by WoLF (Woman's Liberation Front), The Heritage Foundation, Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF) and anti-trans parent's groups which can be found here: https://genderresourceguide.  (break)  com/wp-content/themes/genderresource/library/documents/NPRGFullDocumentPrintV17.pdf

Dr. Hruz, whose evidence was heavily relied on in the Bell judgement is linked to both ADF and the Heritage Foundation having previously spoken at their events, acted as an expert witness for them and attended their conferences.  He has no clinical experience in treating gender dysphoria, and his own University has warned he is not qualified to speak on this subject. Keira Bell's inspiration Posie Parker recently formally joined WoLF as a special advisor "to further transatlantic feminist collaboration". There is significant collaboration taking place between some gender critical activists in the UK opposed to trans healthcare and right wing and evangelical groups in the US pushing these bills.


----------



## smokedout (Apr 7, 2021)

SpackleFrog said:


> I don't think its much of a jump from u-16's to u-18's and I don't share your faith but fair enough



The Judge in the Bell case agreed:



> We do however recognise that in the light of the evidence that has emerged, and the terms of this judgment, clinicians may well consider that it is not appropriate to move to treatment, such as PBs or CSH, without the involvement of the court. We consider that it would be appropriate for clinicians to involve the court in any case where there may be any doubt as to whether the long-term best interests of a 16 or 17 year old would be served by the clinical interventions at issue in this case.


----------



## NoXion (Apr 7, 2021)

smokedout said:


> As are the bills in Arkansas and North Carolina.  The contents of these bills were heavily influenced by a joint document put out by WoLF (Woman's Liberation Front), The Heritage Foundation, Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF) and anti-trans parent's groups which can be found here: https://genderresourceguide.  (break)  com/wp-content/themes/genderresource/library/documents/NPRGFullDocumentPrintV17.pdf
> 
> Dr. Hruz, whose evidence was heavily relied on in the Bell judgement is linked to both ADF and the Heritage Foundation having previously spoken at their events, acted as an expert witness for them and attending their conferences.  He has no clinical experience in treating gender dysphoria, and his own University has warned he is not qualified to speak on this subject. Keira Bell's inspiration Posie Parker recently formally joined WoLF as a special advisor "to further transatlantic feminist collaboration". There is significant collaboration taking place between some gender critical activists in the UK opposed to trans healthcare and right wing and evangelical groups in the US pushing these bills.



Not for nothing is the UK called "TERF island".


----------



## Border Reiver (Apr 7, 2021)

smokedout said:


> The Judge in the Bell case agreed:


That does not apply to parental consent after a clarifying judgement two weeks ago.


----------



## Border Reiver (Apr 7, 2021)

Border Reiver said:


> As a social construct, gender may correlate with biological sex but is not caused by it. All identities are negotiated between the person and the society. That is what "construction" means. This applies to all identities, nationality, occupational, sexuality, group membership, etc, not just gender.


I have said and believe nothing else. I am a stong constructivist even beyond social science.


----------



## Border Reiver (Apr 7, 2021)

bimble said:


> Maybe not all that tiny really, if he's telling the truth about how one fifth of the staff at the Tavistock GIDS service grouped together to announce that they too had 'grave ethical concerns' about the service that their own workplace was providing?


Please place that claim in context with a reference.


----------



## 8ball (Apr 7, 2021)

Border Reiver said:


> I have said and believe nothing else. I am a stong constructivist even beyond social science.



I hope this doesn’t get too heated or you’ll wind up on your own ignore list.


----------



## bimble (Apr 7, 2021)

Border Reiver said:


> Please place that claim in context with a reference.


Please leave me alone. What I said simply referenced his article the one that was posted here.


----------



## smokedout (Apr 7, 2021)

Incidentally Keira had a new case ready to go which has already raised £50,000 and which aimed to challenge the legality of the NHS signing the Memorandum of Understanding on Conversion Therapy of which she says:



> Attempts to help change or suppress a gender identity are seen as conversion therapy, unethical and potentially harmful. In practice this means that girls who believe they are boys are to be affirmed in that belief. Similarly boys who believe they are girls are to be affirmed in that belief. This limits the ability of clinicians to help children with these beliefs to be reconciled to their natal sex. If a clinician tries to challenge a child's misguided belief or explore its causes with a view to alleviating gender/sex confusion they run the risk of being accused of conversion therapy.



The case has probably been abandoned due to the upcoming independent review although I suspect if the review doesn't find what she wants there will be another attempt using the same evangelical tag team of witnesses that proved successful in her case against GIDS: Protect Gender Dysphoric Children from the Affirmation Model 

She clearly supports not a wider exploration of other issues which may be causing dysphoria but explicit attempts to therapeutically challenge the 'misguided beliefs' of gender dysphoric kids and help them to be 'reconciled to their natal sex.  Which sounds a lot like conversion therapy to me. but apparantly trans people concerned about this have lost their way and are being completely unreasonable.


----------



## Border Reiver (Apr 7, 2021)

bimble said:


> Please leave me alone. What I said simply referenced his article the one that was posted here.


Out of context it is highly misleading. Many of the signatories were on placement, not regular staff, and relatively junior.


----------



## Border Reiver (Apr 7, 2021)

8ball said:


> I hope this doesn’t get too heated or you’ll wind up on your own ignore list.


No debate to offer I see.


----------



## bimble (Apr 7, 2021)

Border Reiver said:


> Out of context it is highly misleading. Many of the signatories were on placement, not regular staff, and relatively junior.


Ok. Please leave me alone thank you.


----------



## SpineyNorman (Apr 8, 2021)

Generally avoid trans threads because I don't really understand it well enough to make a contribution and it's not something that directly affects me so I don't have any insights. So this is a drive by post. 

I also think this thread should be nuked from orbit. Started by a shit stirring little bigot who for some reason people want to pussy foot around and make allowances and excuses for. Fuck that, I'll call it as I see it. Whatever they may have been before coop is now just a weirdly obsessed nasty piece of work now. 

But if it's not going to be binned off it would be improved greatly if the likes of Athos , Border Reiver and the like could be persuaded to stfu. You're not helping.


----------



## Border Reiver (Apr 8, 2021)

SpineyNorman said:


> Generally avoid trans threads because I don't really understand it well enough to make a contribution and it's not something that directly affects me so I don't have any insights. So this is a drive by post.
> 
> I also think this thread should be nuked from orbit. Started by a shit stirring little bigot who for some reason people want to pussy foot around and make allowances and excuses for. Fuck that, I'll call it as I see it. Whatever they may have been before coop is now just a weirdly obsessed nasty piece of work now.
> 
> But if it's not going to be binned off it would be improved greatly if the likes of Athos , Border Reiver and the like could be persuaded to stfu. You're not helping.


So you do not support protection of trans rights. I see.


----------



## Shechemite (Apr 8, 2021)

Im done


----------



## NoXion (Apr 8, 2021)

Border Reiver said:


> So you do not support protection of trans rights. I see.



Of course he does you stupid shit-stirring prick.


----------



## A380 (Apr 8, 2021)

Border Reiver said:


> So you do not support protection of trans rights. I see.


Is there a single person left who thinks this buffoon is posting in good faith?


----------



## Looby (Apr 8, 2021)

Border Reiver said:


> So you do not support protection of trans rights. I see.


What the fuck are you on about?


----------



## Border Reiver (Apr 8, 2021)

NoXion said:


> Of course he does you stupid shit-stirring prick.


He certainly does not seem to. Abuse is not debate.


----------



## Border Reiver (Apr 8, 2021)

Looby said:


> What the fuck are you on about?


Criticizing me correcting exactly what the current laws are when people get them wrong. Abuse is not debate.


----------



## A380 (Apr 8, 2021)

Abuse is not debate
Abuse is not debate
Ignore
Ignore
Ignore!


----------



## Knotted (Apr 8, 2021)

A380 said:


> Is there a single person left who thinks this buffoon is posting in good faith?



The content is reasonable enough IMO. Just a posting style that's rubbing everyone up the wrong way.


----------



## A380 (Apr 8, 2021)

Knotted said:


> The content is reasonable enough IMO. Just a posting style that's rubbing everyone up the wrong way.


But ‘ignoring’ 60% of posters who raise a challenge seems not to be behaviour in good faith. And the seeming high levels understanding of ‘U75 grammar’ says either a very very long term lurker- or a second account, sock puppet or returner to me.

I also worried  this whole thread was a bit spiteful after the issues with the main one. That this Buffoon should rock up at exactly the same time got my spider senses tingling.

Anyway, my suspicions  won’t matter to said buffoon as I am on a ‘double’ ignore.


----------



## bmd (Apr 8, 2021)

SpineyNorman said:


> Generally avoid trans threads because I don't really understand it well enough to make a contribution and it's not something that directly affects me so I don't have any insights. So this is a drive by post.
> 
> I also think this thread should be nuked from orbit. Started by a shit stirring little bigot who for some reason people want to pussy foot around and make allowances and excuses for. Fuck that, I'll call it as I see it. Whatever they may have been before coop is now just a weirdly obsessed nasty piece of work now.
> 
> But if it's not going to be binned off it would be improved greatly if the likes of Athos , Border Reiver and the like could be persuaded to stfu. You're not helping.



What makes you say that? Genuine question, zero agenda or clue what coop has said to make you see them that way.


----------



## ginger_syn (Apr 8, 2021)

Border Reiver said:


> So you do not support protection of trans rights. I see.


Don't be a dick mate , there's no need .


----------



## ginger_syn (Apr 8, 2021)

bmd said:


> What makes you say that? Genuine question, zero agenda or clue what coop has said to make you see them that way.


I'd say he's spot on considering past posts of the op.


----------



## smokedout (Apr 8, 2021)

One of the more grimly fascinating and to be honest quite scary things about this debate is the level of obsession that some gender critical people have developed about this.  A GC website has just been started for 'those we have lost' meaning people who they've lost relationships with due to 'trans ideology'.  Marriages have broken up over this, people are no longer speaking to their kids, there are people who've lost all their friends and family and I don't believe it's just because they believe sex is real, but they've become obsessed with it and can't talk about anything else and the venom, rage and hatred is staggering - not even just towards trans people anymore but anything they consider woke.   And most of these people are very respectable, otherwise politically middle of the road, often in professional jobs like law or journalism, and they are utterly convinced that trans people are going to destroy the world somehow.

Glinner is probably the best example of someone whose thrown their life and family away because of this, but there are other more concerning cases, people on benefits saying they are giving every penny they have to crowd funders, or no longer use womens toilets or go anywhere, or shop anywhere because they boycott a business at the slightest hint of support for trans people.  It's like conspiracy theory on stilts in terms of the impact it's having on people's lives, and there's no end of grifters emerging to exploit that.  And it's not even hatred of men, which you might rightly expect from lesbian separatists like Shiela Jeffreys or someone, lots of them are men, most are completely relaxed about actual men working in prisons or single sex spaces, and Posie is not the only one who has called for male protection in those spaces, she's just the most high profile.  It's about trans people, queers, drag queens, kinky people, sex workers and often just younger and trans inclusive feminists - the hatred for Sisters Uncut on GC twitter following the Clapham vigil was astonishing.  I don't think I've ever seen a moral panic quite like this before and it is genuinely frightening where it could lead if it becomes more widespread because a considerable number of people seem to have lost all sense of proportion and restraint.


----------



## stethoscope (Sep 17, 2021)

smokedout said:


> Keira Bell is the detransitioner who went to court to try and prevent children and young people from having access to trans healthcare and had some success, although that's now been largely overturned - although the threat to Gillick competence is still very real. Last week her legal team, led by a notorious barrister from the religious right, attempted to intervene in a court case to prevent a young trans person being proscribed blockers that they, their parents and their doctors all supported.  Thankfully the court told them to fuck off.  These aren't just people on twitter.



Bell overturned in Court of Appeal today, but unsurprisingly as some of us have been saying for some time, trans stuff is also wedge issue being exploited for further regressive shit... looks like they could be gunning for Gillick which any feminist should be concerned about...







Anyway, last post from me on urban, as this place is dead to me however hard I try x


----------



## eatmorecheese (Sep 17, 2021)

Go easy stethoscope


----------



## smokedout (Sep 17, 2021)

Posie Parker just said on youtube that the GC movement should go after Gillick as well, saying it was the thin end of the wedge and that children can't consent and we need to find other ways to stop teenage pregnancy.


----------



## Edie (Sep 17, 2021)

Gillick competence isn’t going anywhere.


----------



## Looby (Sep 17, 2021)

stethoscope said:


> Bell overturned in Court of Appeal today, but unsurprisingly as some of us have been saying for some time, trans stuff is also wedge issue being exploited for further regressive shit... looks like they could be gunning for Gillick which any feminist should be concerned about...
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I’m in no way going to try and convince you to stay but I am really sorry about this and sorry that this doesn’t feel like a warm and supportive place for you. Please take care.


----------



## Raheem (Sep 17, 2021)

Sounds like they tore the High Court a new one a bit, which is reassuring.


----------



## Athos (Sep 17, 2021)

I'd said earlier that I thought _Bell_ would be overturned on appeal (and quite rightly).  I can't see the Supreme Court overturning _Gillick_.


----------



## hitmouse (Sep 17, 2021)

stethoscope said:


> Anyway, last post from me on urban, as this place is dead to me however hard I try x


I respect that it's your decision, and I appreciate our time here hasn't overlapped much, but still very sorry to hear that.


----------



## Steel Icarus (Sep 17, 2021)

Stethoscope is/has been one of the best posters on here and whatever the reasons it's a damn shame


----------



## Orang Utan (Sep 18, 2021)

Edie said:


> Gillick competence isn’t going anywhere.


especially now kids are wanting to get vaccinated against the wishes of their parents


----------



## smmudge (Sep 18, 2021)

Orang Utan said:


> especially now kids are wanting to get vaccinated against the wishes of their parents



A vaccine that protects you from the wishes of your parents, that would be great


----------



## Cid (Sep 18, 2021)

Love to you stethoscope , real shame to see you go, but can understand why.


----------



## 19force8 (Sep 21, 2021)

Athos said:


> I'd said earlier that I thought _Bell_ would be overturned on appeal (and quite rightly).  I can't see the Supreme Court overturning _Gillick_.


Neither can I, but nor can I see the Tavistock reinstating even its woefully inadequate services while there's talk of an appeal. 

That's how lawfare works.


----------



## Athos (Sep 21, 2021)

19force8 said:


> Neither can I, but nor can I see the Tavistock reinstating even its woefully inadequate services while there's talk of an appeal.
> 
> That's how lawfare works.



I think they'll probably revert to what they were doing, as I've no doubt they sincerely believe it's in their patients' best interests (and they're probably right). But, in any event, they're currently reviewing the service.


----------



## 19force8 (Sep 22, 2021)

Athos said:


> I think they'll probably revert to what they were doing, as I've no doubt they sincerely believe it's in their patients' best interests (and they're probably right). But, in any event, they're currently reviewing the service.


From what I've seen there's very little evidence the NHS Gender Identity Development Services for adolescents (& adults) were capable of acting in their patients' best interests before _Bell. _So I have every doubt they'll start now.

I don't know if it's been reported in another thread, but there is a three month inquisition tribunal running just now in which the GMC has charged a GP who provided these services in 2016 with, among other things, not following guidelines that didn't exist until 2019. Even the GMC's own expert witnesses have admitted that the NHS GIDSs are not fit for purpose.

It's being live tweeted at the link below for anyone interested:



			https://twitter.com/MPTS_Hearing


----------



## belboid (Sep 22, 2021)

yeah, any issues with GIDS are definitely nothing to do with appalling underfunding, waiting lists way longer than the supposed eighteen weeks (you're bloody lucky if you're seen within eighteen months) and everything to do with their being in thrall to ideology


----------



## Athos (Sep 22, 2021)

19force8 said:


> From what I've seen there's very little evidence the NHS Gender Identity Development Services for adolescents (& adults) were capable of acting in their patients' best interests before _Bell. _So I have every doubt they'll start now.
> 
> I don't know if it's been reported in another thread, but there is a three month inquisition tribunal running just now in which the GMC has charged a GP who provided these services in 2016 with, among other things, not following guidelines that didn't exist until 2019. Even the GMC's own expert witnesses have admitted that the NHS GIDSs are not fit for purpose.
> 
> ...


It seems like there's not yet a sufficent evidence base for some of what's being done, but, given that doing nothing isn't a harm-free option, the least bad option (for now) is to go with the best guess of experts in the field, whom I'm sure want the best for their patients.


----------



## 19force8 (Sep 22, 2021)

belboid said:


> yeah, any issues with GIDS are definitely nothing to do with appalling underfunding, waiting lists way longer than the supposed eighteen weeks (you're bloody lucky if you're seen within eighteen months) and everything to do with their being in thrall to ideology


Not sure what you're getting at here. The GIDS were and are massively underfunded and so not _capable_ of acting in their patients' best interests. regardless of what they believe.

As for "ideology" - I don't know enough to say for sure, but I think there must be a link between the funding and popularity/appeal of different areas of medicine. Is that what you meant?


----------



## belboid (Sep 22, 2021)

19force8 said:


> Not sure what you're getting at here. The GIDS were and are massively underfunded and so not _capable_ of acting in their patients' best interests. regardless of what they believe.
> 
> As for "ideology" - I don't know enough to say for sure, but I think there must be a link between the funding and popularity/appeal of different areas of medicine. Is that what you meant?


No, I mean that health services should be provided for on the basis of need.  Which means fully funding them so people have a hope of 'proper' support and not leaving waiting lists that drive people to dodgy medicines over the net or self harming.


----------



## HoratioCuthbert (Sep 22, 2021)

19force8 said:


> Neither can I, but nor can I see the Tavistock reinstating even its woefully inadequate services while there's talk of an appeal.
> 
> That's how lawfare works.


Yep


----------



## Edie (Sep 25, 2021)

Whaaaat is this completely dehumanising phrase? 😱 Am I a body with a vagina now? Is that how men see me?


----------



## SpookyFrank (Sep 25, 2021)

Edie said:


> View attachment 290007
> 
> Whaaaat is this completely dehumanising phrase? 😱 Am I a body with a vagina now? Is that how men see me?



If only there was some context provided, like for example the inclusion of the words 'anatomy and physiology', that could cast some light on the intended meaning of this phrase.


----------



## Edie (Sep 25, 2021)

Do you see this happening to men? Why not do you think Frank? What could be the reason for this discrepancy? 🤔


----------



## Thora (Sep 25, 2021)

Edie said:


> View attachment 290007
> 
> Whaaaat is this completely dehumanising phrase? 😱 Am I a body with a vagina now? Is that how men see me?


This, and a post from I think the ACLU where they edited the word “woman” out of a Ruth Bader Ginsberg quote, have both made me  this week.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Sep 25, 2021)

Edie said:


> Do you see this happening to men? Why not do you think Frank? What could be the reason for this discrepancy? 🤔
> 
> View attachment 290009



I suppose it's dimly possible that these sentences were written by different people to convey different things. No wait, that can't be right. Must be that the word 'woman' has been abolished by fiat, despite that being a thing that has never happened and could not possibly happen. Yes. That makes sense.


----------



## Thora (Sep 25, 2021)

SpookyFrank said:


> I suppose it's dimly possible that these sentences were written by different people to convey different things. No wait, that can't be right. Must be that the word 'woman' has been abolished by fiat, despite that being a thing that has never happened and could not possibly happen. Yes. That makes sense.


Why are so many organisations avoiding using the word woman anymore though? I don’t understand how/why it’s become offensive 


What kind of people are being controlled and treated as less than? Is there a link between them and bodies with vaginas?


----------



## SpookyFrank (Sep 25, 2021)

Fun fact: anyone who bothered to read the relevant article would see it pertained to an exhibition about periods at the Vagina Museum. So some justification for mentioning vaginas, maybe.

The full version of the sentence quoted on the cover also features the word 'women'.


----------



## Edie (Sep 25, 2021)

SpookyFrank said:


> I suppose it's dimly possible that these sentences were written by different people to convey different things. No wait, that can't be right. Must be that the word 'woman' has been abolished by fiat, despite that being a thing that has never happened and could not possibly happen. Yes. That makes sense.


I don’t understand this. What is fiat? Clearly the above examples show evidence of the word woman being taken out of use. And more importantly, when the fuck did left wing men like you get to tell women what we can and can’t call ourselves?


----------



## kabbes (Sep 25, 2021)

Edie said:


> View attachment 290007
> 
> Whaaaat is this completely dehumanising phrase? 😱 Am I a body with a vagina now? Is that how men see me?


The irony is that a social context that categorises one group of people as “bodies with vaginas” is precisely one that will then inadequately consider the needs and experiences of that group within its research. The headline is like a subtle and bleak joke about the dehistoricisation and subjectivity-blindness of science.


----------



## Edie (Sep 25, 2021)

SpookyFrank said:


> Fun fact: anyone who bothered to read the relevant article would see it pertained to an exhibition about periods at the Vagina Museum. So some justification for mentioning vaginas, maybe.
> 
> The full version of the sentence quoted on the cover also features the word 'women'.


Don’t minimise it


----------



## SpookyFrank (Sep 25, 2021)

Edie said:


> Don’t minimise it



Did you read the article? If you did I strongly suspect it would assuage your concerns.









						Periods on display
					

The silence, shame, and stigma surrounding menstruation are increasingly being challenged from various cultural domains. In a bold, comical, and highly digestible book, It's About Bloody Time. Period. (2019), Emma Barnett busts taboos about menstruation. Others have focused on period poverty—the...



					www.thelancet.com
				




It's free to access.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Sep 25, 2021)

Edie said:


> Clearly the above examples show evidence of the word woman being taken out of use. And more importantly, when the fuck did left wing men like you get to tell women what we can and can’t call ourselves?



Again, the word 'women' appears _in the sentence quoted._


----------



## SpookyFrank (Sep 25, 2021)

kabbes said:


> The irony is that a social context that categorises one group of people as “bodies with vaginas” is precisely one that will then inadequately consider the needs and experiences of that group within its research. The headline is like a subtle and bleak joke about the dehistoricisation and subjectivity-blindness of science.



Did you read the article?


----------



## Edie (Sep 25, 2021)

SpookyFrank said:


> Again, the word 'women' appears _in the sentence quoted._


And more importantly, when the fuck did left wing men like you get to tell women what we can and can’t call ourselves? 

Seriously, _when_ did you think you started feeling entitled to weigh in telling those stupid women that they are wrong to feel dehumanised by being referred to as a ‘bodies with vaginas’.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Sep 25, 2021)

Edie said:


> And more importantly, when the fuck did left wing men like you get to tell women what we can and can’t call ourselves?
> 
> Seriously, _when_ did you think you started feeling entitled to weigh in telling those stupid women that they are wrong to feel dehumanised by being referred to as a ‘bodies with vaginas’.


 
When did I tell anyone what to call themselves? I've called into question the validity of using a sentence with the word 'women' in it as evidence that the word 'women' is being taken out of use. I consider that fair comment.

I've also suggested that context might affect meaning, as in the case of an article about vaginas and menstruation having a headline with the word 'vagina' in it.

You don't want to address either of those points so you've decided I'm telling you that you can't call yourself a woman. Quote any post of mine where I have done anything of the sort and I will happily retract it with a cringing apology.


----------



## Edie (Sep 25, 2021)

SpookyFrank said:


> When did I tell anyone what to call themselves? I've called into question the validity of using a sentence with the word 'women' in it as evidence that the word 'women' is being taken out of use. I consider that fair comment.
> 
> I've also suggested that context might affect meaning, as in the case of an article about vaginas and menstruation having a headline with the word 'vagina' in it.
> 
> You don't want to address either of those points so you've decided I'm telling you that you can't call yourself a woman. Quote any post of mine where I have done anything of the sort and I will happily retract it with a cringing apology.


This is just flannel. I told you that I found women being referred to as a group as ‘bodies with vaginas’ dehumanising, and you are defending it. I’m asking you, a man, why you feel you have that entitlement.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Sep 25, 2021)

That abolition of the word woman in full:



> Historically, the anatomy and physiology of bodies with vaginas have been neglected—for example, the paucity in understanding of endometriosis and the way women's pain has been seen as more likely to have an emotional or psychological cause, a hangover from centuries of theorising about hysteria.



For the record I understand that language is one of many ways in which women are 'controlled or treated as less than', but the words quoted appear to be the words of someone who is working to expose and counteract that mistreatment, not to contribute to it.


----------



## Knotted (Sep 25, 2021)

It's a peculiar thing when the use of certain language is seen as an attempt at abolishing other language. I guess if you want to get yourself worked up you will find a way. What next, the abolition of christmas?????!!!!


----------



## kabbes (Sep 25, 2021)

SpookyFrank said:


> Did you read the article?


It’s not about the article, though.  It’s about the headline, and what that headline says about the editorial decisions.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Sep 25, 2021)

I might question the wisdom of the editor who chose that sentence fragment, stripped of context, for the cover of a journal. Particularly as the context in this case entirely vindicates the choice of language.


----------



## Edie (Sep 25, 2021)

SpookyFrank said:


> That abolition of the word woman in full:
> 
> 
> 
> For the record I understand that language is one of many ways in which women are 'controlled or treated as less than', but the words quoted appear to be the words of someone who is working to expose and counteract that mistreatment, not to contribute to it.


You are missing the point Frank


----------



## Sue (Sep 25, 2021)

Knotted said:


> It's a peculiar thing when the use of certain language is seen as an attempt at abolishing other language. I guess if you want to get yourself worked up you will find a way. What next, the abolition of christmas?????!!!!


Jesus.


----------



## Edie (Sep 25, 2021)

Knotted said:


> It's a peculiar thing when the use of certain language is seen as an attempt at abolishing other language. I guess if you want to get yourself worked up you will find a way. What next, the abolition of christmas?????!!!!


Are you really that dumb?


----------



## keybored (Sep 25, 2021)

They might retract it in 12 years or so.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Sep 25, 2021)

Edie said:


> This is just flannel. I told you that I found women being referred to as a group as ‘bodies with vaginas’ dehumanising, and you are defending it. I’m asking you, a man, why you feel you have that entitlement.



The words were written by a woman though. Isn't defending a woman's right to express herself as she chooses a good thing?


----------



## hitmouse (Sep 25, 2021)

I'm not convinced that the use of the word "bodies" in an article about anatomy and physiology is that much of a shock horror moment.


Edie said:


> Do you see this happening to men? Why not do you think Frank? What could be the reason for this discrepancy? 🤔
> 
> View attachment 290009





🤷‍♂️


Edie said:


> And more importantly, when the fuck did left wing men like you get to tell women what we can and can’t call ourselves?
> 
> Seriously, _when_ did you think you started feeling entitled to weigh in telling those stupid women that they are wrong to feel dehumanised by being referred to as a ‘bodies with vaginas’.


What about trans men? Do they get a say in how they're described, or are they just to be told that they have women's bodies and to shut up about it?


----------



## Edie (Sep 25, 2021)

SpookyFrank said:


> The words were written by a woman though. Isn't defending a woman's right to express herself as she chooses a good thing?


Some women also think abortion should be illegal Frank. Do you defend that position?


----------



## spanglechick (Sep 25, 2021)

If the writer is referring to both cis women, _and_ trans men, why shouldn’t they use inclusive, accurate language?


----------



## FabricLiveBaby! (Sep 25, 2021)

SpookyFrank said:


> That abolition of the word woman in full:
> 
> "Historically, the anatomy and *physiology of bodies with vaginas* have been neglected—for example, the paucity in understanding of and the way *women's* *pain* has been seen as more likely to have an *emotional or psychological* cause, a hangover from centuries of theorising about hysteria"



Interesting isn't it?

When they talk about our physical needs we are relegated to "bodies with vaginas". Yet, when they talk about hysteria, and pain, and emotion.. suddenly we are women again.

Almost like we've been redefined as feelings... In a medical publication of all things.


----------



## Edie (Sep 25, 2021)

hitmouse said:


> I'm not convinced that the use of the word "bodies" in an article about anatomy and physiology is that much of a shock horror moment.
> 
> View attachment 290021
> View attachment 290022
> ...


Well I’m glad that you, a man, don’t find it a shock horror moment. That’s the end of the matter I guess.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Sep 25, 2021)

Edie said:


> Some women also think abortion should be illegal Frank. Do you defend that position?



I defended a woman's use of the word 'vagina' in the context of an article about menstruation. If you can't tell the difference between that and trying to ban abortion then I really can't help you.


----------



## Edie (Sep 25, 2021)

SpookyFrank said:


> I defended a woman's use of the word 'vagina' in the context of an article about menstruation. If you can't tell the difference between that and trying to ban abortion then I really can't help you.


Is that your understanding? If so I’d duck out at this point before you say anything else.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Sep 25, 2021)

E2a: removed.


----------



## Athos (Sep 25, 2021)

It's a spectacularly crass headline in the current environment; I can't help but wonder whether it was naive or a deliberate thumbing of the nose.

Apart from the fact that many women clearly find it offensive (as its dehumanising and shows a double standard when men aren't referred to in an equivalent way), it's scientifically nonsensical - many female animals could be described as "bodies with vaginas."

Even something like "cis women and other people with vaginas" would be less offensive, whilst still being accurate and inclusive (especially if an equivalent phrase was used when referring to men's health).


----------



## Edie (Sep 25, 2021)

.


----------



## Edie (Sep 25, 2021)

Athos said:


> It's a spectacularly crass headline in the current environment; I can't help but wonder whether it was naive or a deliberate thumbing of the nose.
> 
> Apart from the fact that many women clearly find it offensive (as its dehumanising and shows a double standard when men aren't referred to in an equivalent way), it's scientifically nonsensical - many female animals could be described as "bodies with vaginas."
> 
> Even something like "cis women and other people with vaginas" would be less offensive, whilst still being accurate and inclusive (especially if an equivalent phrase was used when referring to men's health).


Women and female bodied people would be better. I don’t see how naming the vagina is appropriate or even medically correct when discussing menstruation, you menstruate when you have a uterus and are of reproductive age.


----------



## hitmouse (Sep 25, 2021)

FabricLiveBaby! said:


> Interesting isn't it?
> 
> When they talk about our physical needs we are relegated to "bodies with vaginas". Yet, when they talk about hysteria, and pain, and emotion.. suddenly we are women again.
> 
> Almost like we've been redefined as feelings... In a medical publication of all things.


So if you try to make a feminist critique of the way those things have been constructed, mentioning the fact that those stereotypes exist makes you a sexist. Wonderful stuff.


SpookyFrank said:


> Considering the article is about menstruation I don't think they are likely to be referring to trans men. And yet this has ended up in a 'transphobia' thread.


Isn't it that they're trying to be inclusive of all people who menstruate, which would include some trans men among others?


----------



## SpookyFrank (Sep 25, 2021)

hitmouse said:


> Isn't it that they're trying to be inclusive of all people who menstruate, which would include some trans men among others?



Yes I can see I've tied myself in a knot there. Will edit post.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Sep 25, 2021)

.


----------



## Athos (Sep 25, 2021)

Edie said:


> Women and female bodied people would be better. I don’t see how naming the vagina is appropriate or even medically correct when discussing menstruation, you menstruate when you have a uterus and are of reproductive age.


Yeah, or that (though still imperfect as it'd include trans women, who don't share the biology referred to).  I think the vagina reference was probably a segue to the Vagina Museum.  But anything would've been better than the original!


----------



## SpookyFrank (Sep 25, 2021)

Edie said:


> Is that your understanding? If so I’d duck out at this point before you say anything else.



Why what are you going to accuse me of next? Joining the taliban?


----------



## Knotted (Sep 25, 2021)

hitmouse said:


> I'm not convinced that the use of the word "bodies" in an article about anatomy and physiology is that much of a shock horror moment.
> 
> View attachment 290021
> View attachment 290022
> ...



The weirdest thing is that according to this moral panic it is that it is not supposed to be acknowledge that trans men may have female genitals still. Bizarre effort to shield gendered language from any perceived threat (and it is only perceived) by people calling themselves gender critical!


----------



## Knotted (Sep 25, 2021)

The word "woman" is not going anywhere of course. There is no threat to gendered language, it might just not be used in every occasion. The horror!!


----------



## Sue (Sep 25, 2021)

SpookyFrank said:


> I defended a woman's use of the word 'vagina' in the context of an article about menstruation. If you can't tell the difference between that and trying to ban abortion then I really can't help you.


But you did (just about) concede Edie's point about the headline.


SpookyFrank said:


> I might question the wisdom of the editor who chose that sentence fragment, stripped of context, for the cover of a journal.


As a wider point, some of the men on this thread might want to have a think about how they're coming across because it's pretty embarrassing really.


----------



## JuanTwoThree (Sep 25, 2021)

This, skimming through it, 









						Cancer Screening — QTHC
					

CANCER SCREENING




					ourhealthyeg.ca
				




seems to be doing its best with the language.


----------



## Edie (Sep 25, 2021)

SpookyFrank said:


> Why what are you going to accuse me of next? Joining the taliban?


Yes Frank. Jfc  And cancel Christmas whilst your at it.


----------



## Shechemite (Sep 25, 2021)

Knotted said:


> Bizarre effort to shield gendered language



Like referring to dysphoric males as trans women? That sort of shielding of gendered language?


----------



## Athos (Sep 25, 2021)

SpookyFrank Knotted hitmouse given the objectification of women in our society, can you really not empathise with women who find it dehumanising to be described as "bodies with a vagina", especially absent comparable epithets for men?  Don't you agree that it would've been relatively easy to have come up with a better choice of words, that would still have been trans inclusive and fit for purpose?


----------



## SpookyFrank (Sep 25, 2021)

Sue said:


> As a wider point, some of the men on this thread might want to have a think about how they're coming across because it's pretty embarrassing really.



I'd be embarassed about extrapolating a universal social trend from the contents of an article I'd not even read but we're all different I suppose.


----------



## Sue (Sep 25, 2021)

SpookyFrank said:


> I'd be embarassed about extrapolating a universal social trend from the contents of an article I'd not even read but we're all different I suppose.


I'd be embarrassed if I was coming across as a patronising mansplainy twat but yeah, guess we are all different.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Sep 25, 2021)

Sue said:


> I'd be embarrassed if I was coming across as a patronising mansplainy twat but yeah, guess we are all different.



And the men patiently telling the woman writing for a prestigious medical journal that she got it wrong and should try a bit harder next time, those are not patronising mansplainy twats?


----------



## Sue (Sep 25, 2021)

SpookyFrank said:


> And the men patiently telling the woman writing for a prestigious medical journal that she got it wrong and should try a bit harder next time, those are not patronising mansplainy twats?


Ah, I didn't realise we knew the sex of the editor who came up with that headline so I stand corrected. 

Anyway, this feels a bit pointless so whatever.


----------



## Knotted (Sep 25, 2021)

MadeInBedlam said:


> Like referring to dysphoric males as trans women? That sort of shielding of gendered language?



That may look like a gotcha to you, but actually yes you are right. Gendered language is just a thing that's going to continue existing and if some women are really concerned about it going away, they are not going to get push back from most trans people.


----------



## Shechemite (Sep 25, 2021)

Right


----------



## hitmouse (Sep 25, 2021)

Athos said:


> SpookyFrank Knotted hitmouse given the objectification of women in our society, can you really not empathise with women who find it dehumanising to be described as "bodies with a vagina", especially absent comparable epithets for men?  Don't you agree that it would've been relatively easy to have come up with a better choice of words, that would still have been trans inclusive and fit for purpose?


But comparable epithets do clearly exist though?











People can be outraged about whatever they want to be outraged about, I'd be a bit more curious about exactly what chain of events lead to this Lancet headline ending up on this thread in the first place. Who chose to amplify that cover and why?


----------



## Brainaddict (Sep 25, 2021)

Shon Faye's book sounds interesting: Shon Faye wants a “deeper conversation” about trans liberation


----------



## belboid (Sep 25, 2021)

Edie said:


> This is just flannel. I told you that I found women being referred to as a group as ‘bodies with vaginas’ dehumanising, and you are defending it. I’m asking you, a man, why you feel you have that entitlement.


And trans people find your language dehumanising.  Why do you have that entitlement?


----------



## Knotted (Sep 25, 2021)

Athos said:


> SpookyFrank Knotted hitmouse given the objectification of women in our society, can you really not empathise with women who find it dehumanising to be described as "bodies with a vagina", especially absent comparable epithets for men?  Don't you agree that it would've been relatively easy to have come up with a better choice of words, that would still have been trans inclusive and fit for purpose?



Yes I can empathise with it. I can see how it looks. I can see it the other way in which the author is probably going out of their way not just to be trans inclusive but to refer to bodies and not to people ie. implicitly emphasising that the author considers the person to be more than their biology. These are scientists writing in a journal not public communicators writing in a newspaper. They're not going to explain the political nuances of their language.

I think there's a lot distrust in this debate and there's a lot of distrust with the medical establishment. But I think looking for the worst interpretation is not a good way to go. It's probably not a conspiracy to dehumanise women, it's probably just something well meaning, but looks bad at a glance. The context is specifically biological, the language is specifically biological. Occam Razor it.

I see this as part of a broader problem on the left. Healthy distrust and cynicism leading to paranoia, rabbit holes and conspiracy theories. We need to immunise ourselves against it.


----------



## bimble (Sep 25, 2021)

That edited RBG quote actually made me laugh, in a hollow kind of way.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Sep 25, 2021)

hitmouse said:


> People can be outraged about whatever they want to be outraged about, I'd be a bit more curious about exactly what chain of events lead to this Lancet headline ending up on this thread in the first place. Who chose to amplify that cover and why?



They chose to post the cover alone with no context or link to the offending article at any rate. Cash money says it's pasted from a facebook group.


----------



## Santino (Sep 25, 2021)

Knotted said:


> Yes I can empathise with it. I can see how it looks. I can see it the other way in which the author is probably going out of their way not just to be trans inclusive but to refer to bodies and not to people ie. implicitly emphasising that the author considers the person to be more than their biology. These are scientists writing in a journal not public communicators writing in a newspaper. They're not going to explain the political nuances of their language.
> 
> I think there's a lot distrust in this debate and there's a lot of distrust with the medical establishment. But I think looking for the worst interpretation is not a good way to go. It's probably not a conspiracy to dehumanise women, it's probably just something well meaning, but looks bad at a glance. The context is specifically biological, the language is specifically biological. Occam Razor it.
> 
> I see this as part of a broader problem on the left. Healthy distrust and cynicism leading to paranoia, rabbit holes and conspiracy theories. We need to immunise ourselves against it.


This you?


Knotted said:


> I guess if you want to get yourself worked up you will find a way. What next, the abolition of christmas?????!!!!





Knotted said:


> The weirdest thing is that according to this moral panic it is that it is not supposed to be acknowledge that trans men may have female genitals still. Bizarre effort to shield gendered language from any perceived threat (and it is only perceived) by people calling themselves gender critical!


----------



## Athos (Sep 25, 2021)

hitmouse said:


> But comparable epithets do clearly exist though?
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I don't know when or where those quotes are from, but I see that The Lancet referred to "Men's Health" very recently, which does seem to suggest an inconsistency of approach.

You'd have to ask Edie why she raised it.

But you've really ducked the main substance of my post:

_"Don't you agree that it would've been relatively easy to have come up with a better choice of words, that would still have been trans inclusive and fit for purpose?"_

Because it seems to me that it wouldn't be hard to find a wording that's trans inclusive and takes into account the feelings of women who are offended by dehumanising terms. And I wonder why anyone would choose not to do so. Its like it's become a point of principle to concede nothing to 'the other side', which polarisation makes progress difficult.

For the record, I don't think there's some great conspiracy to do away with the word 'woman', or even that it should have been substituted for 'bodies with vaginas' in the headline in question.


----------



## Athos (Sep 25, 2021)

Knotted said:


> Yes I can empathise with it. I can see how it looks. I can see it the other way in which the author is probably going out of their way not just to be trans inclusive but to refer to bodies and not to people ie. implicitly emphasising that the author considers the person to be more than their biology. These are scientists writing in a journal not public communicators writing in a newspaper. They're not going to explain the political nuances of their language.
> 
> I think there's a lot distrust in this debate and there's a lot of distrust with the medical establishment. But I think looking for the worst interpretation is not a good way to go. It's probably not a conspiracy to dehumanise women, it's probably just something well meaning, but looks bad at a glance. The context is specifically biological, the language is specifically biological. Occam Razor it.
> 
> I see this as part of a broader problem on the left. Healthy distrust and cynicism leading to paranoia, rabbit holes and conspiracy theories. We need to immunise ourselves against it.



I agree with much of that. But, given the social context - medicine doesn't operate in a vacuum - don't you think it would've been quite easy to say something like 'cis women, trans men, and non-binary people with a vagina', rather than "bodies with a vagina" (and use similar in the recent headline about men's health), and avoid further polarisation around this issue?


----------



## hitmouse (Sep 25, 2021)

Athos said:


> I don't know when or where those quotes are from, but I see that The Lancet referred to "Men's Health" very recently, which does seem to suggest an inconsistency of approach.







As SpookyFrank pointed out, that same article also refers to, for instance, "women's pain".


Athos said:


> You'd have to ask Edie why she raised it.
> 
> But you've really ducked the main substance of my post:
> 
> ...


I'm not sure that the editors of the Lancet were thinking "we want to come up with some deliberately bad wording as a point of principle". I think that where there are professional outrage merchants involved - and to be clear, I'm not saying that anyone on this thread fits that description, but I do strongly suspect that some of them were involved in the chain of events that led to this Lancet headline being discussed here - it will be very difficult to find a form of wording that doesn't give them any fuel whatsoever.


----------



## Edie (Sep 25, 2021)

belboid said:


> And trans people find your language dehumanising.  Why do you have that entitlement?


What language have I used that is dehumanising?


----------



## Athos (Sep 25, 2021)

hitmouse said:


> As SpookyFrank pointed out, that same article also refers to, for instance, "women's pain".
> 
> I'm not sure that the editors of the Lancet were thinking "we want to come up with some deliberately bad wording as a point of principle". I think that where there are professional outrage merchants involved - and to be clear, I'm not saying that anyone on this thread fits that description, but I do strongly suspect that some of them were involved in the chain of events that led to this Lancet headline being discussed here - it will be very difficult to find a form of wording that doesn't give them any fuel whatsoever.



Of course there are hardliners who will settle for nothing less than terminology that reflects their ideology i.e. that all people, and only people, with a vagina are women, and that no other descriptor should be used for them.  But they're a tiny, if loud, minority.  The danger is of driving others into their hands by not empathising with their reasonable objections to dehumanising language.  That group could quite easily have been assuaged by the sort of wording I suggested, which was also trans inclusive and fit for the purpose of a discussion about female biology.  For the editors not to have done so was crass.


----------



## smokedout (Sep 25, 2021)

hitmouse said:


> But comparable epithets do clearly exist t





hitmouse said:


> But comparable epithets do clearly exist though?
> 
> 
> 
> ...



If you google it, it's clearly becoming pretty routine to refer to "people with a prostate" or "people with a penis" in men's healthcare settings. I suspect any disparity is largely because trans women don't tend to need physical sex specific healthcare to the same extent, whereas trans men/afab non binary people have been more successful in asserting their needs in things like reproductive and maternity healthcare.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Sep 25, 2021)

smokedout said:


> If you google it, it's clearly becoming pretty routine to refer to "people with a prostate" or "people with a penis" in men's healthcare settings.



But those instances aren't reposted all over the shop by people with an axe to grind.

It's a funny one isn't it? This upset me, so I'm going to share it with everyone I can find so they can be similarly upset. The Lancet is a specialist publication, people aren't going to see it on the shelf at the newsagent while they're looking for the grot mags. And anyone who bought it to actually read would most likely read more than the one sentence on the cover. And if that sentence was really so heinous, better you'd think to deny it the oxygen of publicity that these flash-in-the-pan chip-wrapper medical journals so desperately crave than to post it on 'things to make you angry while you're on the toilet' or whatever.


----------



## Athos (Sep 25, 2021)

smokedout said:


> If you google it, it's clearly becoming pretty routine to refer to "people with a prostate" or "people with a penis" in men's healthcare settings. I suspect any disparity is laregly because trans women don't tend to need physical sex specific healthcare to the same extent, whereas trans men/afab non binary people have been more successful in asserting their needs in things like reproductive and maternity healthcare.


Even '*people* with a vagina' would've been better than '*bodies* with a vagina.'  It is literally dehumanising; a female animal is a body with a vagina.


----------



## two sheds (Sep 25, 2021)

or 'anyone with a vagina'?


----------



## ElizabethofYork (Sep 25, 2021)

Edie said:


> What language have I used that is dehumanising?


I'm curious about that too.


----------



## kabbes (Sep 25, 2021)

hitmouse said:


> People can be outraged about whatever they want to be outraged about, I'd be a bit more curious about exactly what chain of events lead to this Lancet headline ending up on this thread in the first place. Who chose to amplify that cover and why?



Why is it curious to you that Edie, who has a professional interest in reading the Lancet, would be reading the Lancet?


----------



## hitmouse (Sep 25, 2021)

kabbes said:


> Why is it curious to you that Edie, who has a professional interest in reading the Lancet, would be reading the Lancet?


I mean, it's not like the Lancet is that regularly discussed on here outside of specialist healthcare-related threads? Unless there's a "why the Lancet is going down the pan" thread that I'd missed?


----------



## Sweet FA (Sep 25, 2021)

This isn't a healthcare related thread?


----------



## Athos (Sep 25, 2021)

hitmouse said:


> I mean, it's not like the Lancet is that regularly discussed on here outside of specialist healthcare-related threads? Unless there's a "why the Lancet is going down the pan" thread that I'd missed?


This is (or has become) a thread about trans issues, to which the question of the medical community's attitude towards trans inclusive language (and any unintended consequences thereof) is entirely germane.


----------



## JimW (Sep 25, 2021)

hitmouse said:


> As SpookyFrank pointed out, that same article also refers to, for instance, "women's pain".
> 
> I'm not sure that the editors of the Lancet were thinking "we want to come up with some deliberately bad wording as a point of principle". I think that where there are professional outrage merchants involved - and to be clear, I'm not saying that anyone on this thread fits that description, but I do strongly suspect that some of them were involved in the chain of events that led to this Lancet headline being discussed here - it will be very difficult to find a form of wording that doesn't give them any fuel whatsoever.


That appears to be a readers' letter rather than The Lancet's own editorial.


----------



## Gromit (Sep 25, 2021)

Edie said:


> View attachment 290007
> 
> Whaaaat is this completely dehumanising phrase? 😱 Am I a body with a vagina now? Is that how men see me?


Some deny non cis pre-op women are in fact women.
The sentence above is trying to say 'women' without using the word 'women' so as to exclude some who identify as women. My guess.

Could have just said cis women.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Sep 25, 2021)

kabbes said:


> Why is it curious to you that Edie, who has a professional interest in reading the Lancet, would be reading the Lancet?



Or the front cover at least.


----------



## Athos (Sep 25, 2021)

Gromit said:


> Could have just said cis women.


No, because some trans men and non-binary people also have a vagina.


----------



## Gromit (Sep 25, 2021)

Athos said:


> No, because trans men and some non-binary people also have a vagina.


Oh yeah. Good spot.


----------



## Steel Icarus (Sep 25, 2021)

JimW said:


> That appears to be a readers' letter rather than The Lancet's own editorial.


Dear Lancet

I always thought the letters in your publication were made up, until one day I saw a doctor broken down at the side of the road...


----------



## 8ball (Sep 25, 2021)

Edie said:


> View attachment 290007
> 
> Whaaaat is this completely dehumanising phrase? 😱 Am I a body with a vagina now? Is that how men see me?



You know that’s not how anyone sees you, the occasional sociopath excepted.  Almost all men and almost all women will never have seen that anyway.

But yeah, referring to any person as a “body” seems ropey as fuck to me. 

Edit:  I jumped ahead - apols if I missed any enlightening discussion which I haven’t read yet.


----------



## _Russ_ (Sep 25, 2021)

I have a problem with the whole 'phobic' thing, I don't like Right wing extremists but nobody would call me right wing extemeist-phobic
It seems to be a shorthand for 'you're not allowed to dislike (insert something you're supposed to like) so Im calling you names

What I, trying to say is if someone doesnt like homosexuals then that's their problem (or quality depending on your view), calling them phobic is nonsense, it might be better called hatred something which is a basic human attribute, not a nice one but  its there.

I have no hatred for any sexual preference btw I just can't handle the hypocrisy of those who only want their version of humanity to
 be recognised as such


----------



## smokedout (Sep 25, 2021)

8ball said:


> You know that’s not how anyone sees you, the occasional sociopath excepted.  Almost all men and almost all women will never have seen that anyway.
> 
> But yeah, referring to any person as a “body” seems ropey as fuck to me.
> 
> Edit:  I jumped ahead - apols if I missed any enlightening discussion which I haven’t read yet.


If it is the word bodies that is causing offence then surely that equally dehumanising to trans men and non binary people with vaginas too?  I suspect there would have been just as much outrage if it had said people with a vagina.


----------



## Edie (Sep 25, 2021)

8ball said:


> You know that’s not how anyone sees you, the occasional sociopath excepted.  Almost all men and almost all women will never have seen that anyway.
> 
> But yeah, referring to any person as a “body” seems ropey as fuck to me.
> 
> Edit:  I jumped ahead - apols if I missed any enlightening discussion which I haven’t read yet.


Maybe the objectification of women is something that’s passed you by as a man. I can assure you it’s not just by ‘the occasional sociopath’. That’s a considerable misunderstanding of the oppression of women. An oppression that occurs because of our biological sex, not because of how we _identify_. 

Oh ffs I give up. The ignorance and misogyny on the left is just insurmountable.


----------



## 8ball (Sep 25, 2021)

Edie said:


> Maybe the objectification of women is something that’s passed you by as a man. I can assure you it’s not just by ‘the occasional sociopath’. That’s a considerable misunderstanding of the oppression of women. An oppression that occurs because of our biological sex, not because of how we _identify_.
> 
> Oh ffs I give up. The ignorance and misogyny on the left is just insurmountable.



I wasn’t talking about general misogyny.  I was reacting to your specific post in the context of this forum ie. I was talking how people see you here.  
We’ve been discussing some difficult topics for a while on here and I’d hope you know we don’t see you as a “body”.


----------



## 8ball (Sep 25, 2021)

smokedout said:


> If it is the word bodies that is causing offence then surely that equally dehumanising to trans men and non binary people with vaginas too?  I suspect there would have been just as much outrage if it had said people with a vagina.



I think “people with” as opposed to “bodies with” is different.  Soz if I failed to understand your post properly, though.


----------



## smokedout (Sep 25, 2021)

8ball said:


> I think “people with” as opposed to “bodies with” is different.  Soz if I failed to understand your post properly, though.



I agree, but much of the twitter outrage seems to be about them not using the word women, rather than using the word bodies.


----------



## Edie (Sep 25, 2021)

Outrage is the new hysteria I note


----------



## smokedout (Sep 25, 2021)

Anyway it's probably best read in context, this is the sentence the quote appears in:  "Historically, the anatomy and physiology of bodies with vaginas have been neglected—for example, the paucity in understanding of endometriosis and the way women's pain has been seen as more likely to have an emotional or psychological cause, a hangover from centuries of theorising about hysteria."

I have no idea why they chose that part to put on the front page, although it is an article about the Vagina Museum whose whole thing is de-stigmatising talking about vaginas so it was probably a clumsy attempt to deliberately use the word to reinforce that.


----------



## Athos (Sep 25, 2021)

Edie said:


> Outrage is the new hysteria I note


Quite.  Also, it's a bit of a strawman for people to engage with the assumed objections of non-specific Twitterers, rather than the posts made here.


----------



## smokedout (Sep 25, 2021)

Edie said:


> Outrage is the new hysteria I note



I don't think that's fair, it's quite common for someone to say they are outraged by something whereas it would be rare for someone to describe themselves as hysterical.


----------



## 8ball (Sep 25, 2021)

smokedout said:


> I agree, but much of the twitter outrage seems to be about them not using the word women, rather than using the word bodies.



Ok, I’m not on Twitter so can’t comment.


----------



## Athos (Sep 25, 2021)

smokedout said:


> Anyway it's probably best read in context, this is the sentence the quote appears in:  "Historically, the anatomy and physiology of bodies with vaginas have been neglected—for example, the paucity in understanding of endometriosis and the way women's pain has been seen as more likely to have an emotional or psychological cause, a hangover from centuries of theorising about hysteria."
> 
> I have no idea why they chose that part to put on the front page, although it is an article about the Vagina Museum whose whole thing is de-stigmatising talking about vaginas so it was probably a clumsy attempt to deliberately use the word to reinforce that.


That's one context.  Another is as a standalone line on the front cover.  Really poor judgement on the editors' part.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Sep 25, 2021)

8ball said:


> Ok, I’m not on Twitter so can’t comment.



Just had a quick look. It's a fucking horrible pile-on, I can only imagine how the author and interviewee must feel. They'll know better than to try and promote an exhibition on women's health in future that's for sure.


----------



## smokedout (Sep 25, 2021)

Tbf The Vagina Museum are probably used to it by now, they've been on the end of relentless pile ons, harassment and accusations of misogyny from gender criticals for about 2 years now.  

Also they are fundraising pretty hard after the dickheads at camden market decided to kick them out and they're looking for new premises, there's details here if anyone wants to help:


----------



## SpookyFrank (Sep 25, 2021)

smokedout said:


> Tbf The Vagina Museum are probably used to it by now, they've been on the end of relentless pile ons, harassment and accusations of misogyny from gender criticals for about 2 years now.
> 
> Also they are fundraising pretty hard after the dickheads at camden market decided to kick them out and they're looking for new premises, there's details here if anyone wants to help:




It's important that this tireless focus on the real big boss villains of global patriarchy is maintained at all costs.


----------



## Sue (Sep 25, 2021)

smokedout said:


> Tbf The Vagina Museum are probably used to it by now, they've been on the end of relentless pile ons, harassment and accusations of misogyny from gender criticals for about 2 years now.
> 
> Also they are fundraising pretty hard after the dickheads at camden market decided to kick them out and they're looking for new premises, there's details here if anyone wants to help:



All for vagina museums (who even knew they were a thing!) Not for the cover headline on The Lancet.

Also against misogyny and not super keen on being told I'm doing this being a woman thing wrong by a bunch of blokes (which rightly or wrongly is the vibe I'm kind of getting from this thread. 🤷‍♀️.)

Now waiting to be told exactly how wrong I am about well _everything_....


----------



## smokedout (Sep 26, 2021)

Sue said:


> All for vagina museums (who even knew they were a thing!) Not for the cover headline on The Lancet.
> 
> Also against misogyny and not super keen on being told I'm doing this being a woman thing wrong by a bunch of blokes (which rightly or wrongly is the vibe I'm kind of getting from this thread. 🤷‍♀️.)
> 
> Now waiting to be told exactly how wrong I am about well _everything_....



The vibe I'm getting is look at this horrifying example of how trans people are destroying women and society based on something which appears to have nothing to do with trans people at all.


----------



## Sue (Sep 26, 2021)

smokedout said:


> The vibe I'm getting is look at this horrifying example of how trans people are destroying women and society based on something which appears to have nothing to do with trans people at all.


I don't really understand  what you're saying. The Lancet cover thing is problematic. How some men on here are talking to women about this is problematic. I don't see how trans people are destroying anything?


----------



## 8ball (Sep 26, 2021)

SpookyFrank said:


> Just had a quick look. It's a fucking horrible pile-on, I can only imagine how the author and interviewee must feel. They'll know better than to try and promote an exhibition on women's health in future that's for sure.



I won’t be popping in to take a look.


----------



## smokedout (Sep 26, 2021)

Sue said:


> I don't really understand  what you're saying. The Lancet cover thing is problematic. How some men on here are talking to women about this is problematic. I don't see how trans people are destroying anything?



This is a thread about trans people, why was it even posted on here if it wasn't intended to be an example of the latest terrible thing trans people have done.


----------



## 8ball (Sep 26, 2021)

smokedout said:


> This is a thread about trans people, why was it even posted on here if it wasn't intended to be an example of the latest terrible thing trans people have done.



Isn’t it a thread about whether a particular woman is a transphobe?


----------



## SpookyFrank (Sep 26, 2021)

Sue said:


> All for vagina museums (who even knew they were a thing!) Not for the cover headline on The Lancet.
> 
> Also against misogyny and not super keen on being told I'm doing this being a woman thing wrong by a bunch of blokes (which rightly or wrongly is the vibe I'm kind of getting from this thread. 🤷‍♀️.)
> 
> Now waiting to be told exactly how wrong I am about well _everything_....



I'm not gonna tell you you're wrong but I'd like some specifics about anything I've said which could be construed as telling women they're being women wrong.


----------



## Sue (Sep 26, 2021)

smokedout said:


> This is a thread about trans people, why was it even posted on here if it wasn't intended to be an example of the latest terrible thing trans people have done.


The thread seems to be about transphobia and presumably debate around that so posting this stuff doesn't seem that much of a stretch as a contribution to the debate?

And really you're not the arbiter of what should and shouldn't be discussed in this thread anyway. (I don't mean that to sound mean but the debate on here generally kind of goes where it goes.)


----------



## Sue (Sep 26, 2021)

SpookyFrank said:


> I'm not gonna tell you you're wrong but I'd like some specifics about anything I've said which could be construed as telling women they're being women wrong.


Oh SpookyFrank, you do make me laugh!

Eta You are joking, yes? And if not, I suggest you re-read your posts and have a bit of a think on them. And i mean that in the nicest possible way because really if you're not getting it, you really kinda should be.


----------



## smokedout (Sep 26, 2021)

Sue said:


> The thread seems to be about transphobia and presumably debate around that so posting this stuff doesn't seem that much of a stretch as a contribution to the debate?
> 
> And really you're not the arbiter of what should and shouldn't be discussed in this thread anyway. (I don't mean that to sound mean but the debate on here generally kind of goes where it goes.)



But this doesn't appear to have anything to do with trans people or transphobia or even in this case trans inclusive language, it's just another thing the gender critical movement has leapt on to try and demonise trans people.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Sep 26, 2021)

Sue said:


> Oh SpookyFrank, you do make me laugh!



That's a no on specifics then I take it. I'd like to say I'm surprised but I feel that I've probably leant too heavily on sarcasm already.


----------



## Sue (Sep 26, 2021)

smokedout said:


> But this doesn't appear to have anything to do with trans people or transphobia or even in this case trans inclusive language, it's just another thing the gender critical movement has leapt on to try and demonise trans people.


I didn't post the original stuff and i would never demonise trans people.


----------



## Sue (Sep 26, 2021)

SpookyFrank said:


> That's a no on specifics then I take it. I'd like to say I'm surprised but I feel that I've probably leant too heavily on sarcasm already.


Ah, quoted before my edit. But jeezo, maybe you need to be a bit less sure that you're right and maybe listen a little bit more to other people?


----------



## spanglechick (Sep 26, 2021)

What pisses me off quite a lot, is when trans-inclusive feminist women like me post on the thread, and both sides ignore me so they can continue to represent this as a GC women vs misogynistic men debate.   

And since I’m expressing irritation, I’ve definitely seen GC people, both on urban and elsewhere, talk about “penis havers/owners/people”, when trying to address the physiology shared by cis men and trans women.


----------



## krtek a houby (Sep 26, 2021)

_Russ_ said:


> I have a problem with the whole 'phobic' thing, I don't like Right wing extremists but nobody would call me right wing extemeist-phobic
> It seems to be a shorthand for 'you're not allowed to dislike (insert something you're supposed to like) so Im calling you names
> 
> What I, trying to say is if someone doesnt like homosexuals then that's their problem (or quality depending on your view), calling them phobic is nonsense, it might be better called hatred something which is a basic human attribute, not a nice one but  its there.
> ...



Reckon calling homophobes homophobes is accurate enough. They have an irrational fear of us, which is a phobia.

As for the hypocrisy of those who only want their version of humanity to be recognised as such, who do you mean here? Hetero/religious people?


----------



## Raheem (Sep 26, 2021)

Sue said:


> Ah, quoted before my edit. But jeezo, maybe you need to be a bit less sure that you're right and maybe listen a little bit more to other people?


If you don't feel you're being listened to, though, maybe try a different approach to "If you don't know I can't help you"?


----------



## Sue (Sep 26, 2021)

I'm not even sure I know what's meant by GC. If it means 'against gender stereotyping', I'm absolutely in and can't really see what reasonable person wouldn't be. 

Beyond that, I must admit i don't really know what it actually means or what people think it means. And I suspect I'm not alone in that?


----------



## 8ball (Sep 26, 2021)

Sue said:


> I'm not even sure I know what's meant by GC. If it means 'against gender stereotyping', I'm absolutely in and can't really see what reasonable person wouldn't be.
> 
> Beyond that, I must admit i don't really know what it actually means or what people think it means. And I suspect I'm not alone in that?



It comes with a shitload of baggage unrelated to the words it’s comprised of, sadly.


----------



## Knotted (Sep 26, 2021)

Sue said:


> I'm not even sure I know what's meant by GC. If it means 'against gender stereotyping', I'm absolutely in and can't really see what reasonable person wouldn't be.
> 
> Beyond that, I must admit i don't really know what it actually means or what people think it means. And I suspect I'm not alone in that?



It's that but also the radical feminist position that women's oppression is biological sex based and in addition to that that sex not gender defines womanhood/manhood. It's really the last bit that causes the heat as it encompasses beliefs that can (but don't always) include that trans women are imposters and possibly/probably (if you're Sheila Jeffreys) perverts, that trans men are confused lesbians, and that there's a trans agenda pushed by trans rights activists (tra's) trying to trans our kids, eliminate lesbians and sometimes eliminate women all together.


----------



## 8ball (Sep 26, 2021)

krtek a houby said:


> Reckon calling homophobes homophobes is accurate enough. They have an irrational fear of us, which is a phobia.
> 
> As for the hypocrisy of those who only want their version of humanity to be recognised as such, who do you mean here? Hetero/religious people?



‘Phobia’ to mean ‘hatred’ or at least ‘antipathy’ is a fairly common usage tbf, such as in chemistry.

Hatred and fear have common roots.


----------



## smokedout (Sep 26, 2021)

Sue said:


> I'm not even sure I know what's meant by GC. If it means 'against gender stereotyping', I'm absolutely in and can't really see what reasonable person wouldn't be.
> 
> Beyond that, I must admit i don't really know what it actually means or what people think it means. And I suspect I'm not alone in that?





Knotted said:


> It's that but also the radical feminist position that women's oppression is biological sex based and in addition to that that sex not gender defines womanhood/manhood. It's really the last bit that causes the heat as it encompasses beliefs that can (but don't always) include that trans women are imposters and possibly/probably (if you're Sheila Jeffreys) perverts, that trans men are confused lesbians, and that there's a trans agenda pushed by trans rights activists (tra's) trying to trans our kids, eliminate lesbians and sometimes eliminate women all together.



I think it's really moved beyond that and is now a movement which opposed to what they call gender ideology, rather than gender stereotypes or gender itself. There's plenty of right wing people who are openly anti-feminist and committed to the ideas of male/female brains who now call themselves gender critical. And gender ideology is one of those useful phrases like critical race theory or cultural Marxism that can basically mean whatever you want depending on the audience.


----------



## Sue (Sep 26, 2021)

Knotted said:


> It's that but also the radical feminist position that women's oppression is biological sex based


Well sure, some of it obviously is. I don't often hear of men not getting jobs (for example) because they're of childbearing/rearing age. (And yes this does still happen to women.)


Knotted said:


> and in addition to that that sex not gender defines womanhood/manhood. It's really the last bit that causes the heat as it encompasses beliefs that can (but don't always) include that trans women are imposters and possibly/probably (if you're Sheila Jeffreys) perverts, that trans men are confused lesbians, and that there's a trans agenda pushed by trans rights activists (tra's) trying to trans our kids, eliminate lesbians and sometimes eliminate women all together.


All that ^. If someone feels they are/presents as a man or a woman of whatever sexuality -- each to their own and whatever makes folks happy.

Have I seen people use gender stereotypes as some kind of shorthand for gender? Yes I have -- for example being told a nine year old girl was probably trans (despite her never saying anything suggestive of that) because she was a tomboy rather than just being a  girl who was into stuff that's generally viewed as stereotypically make. l I think that's very problematic.

I think my views are not very unusual. Or they certainly aren't among the women I know anyway.


----------



## Sue (Sep 26, 2021)

smokedout said:


> I think it's really moved beyond that and is now a movement which opposed to what they call gender ideology, rather than gender stereotypes or gender itself. There's plenty of right wing people who are openly anti-feminist and committed to the ideas of male/female brains who now call themselves gender critical. And gender ideology is one of those useful phrases like critical race theory or cultural Marxism that can basically mean whatever you want depending on the audience.


I obviously think the male/female brain thing is  bollocks. Especially given I've spent the last 30 years studying/working in a very male-dominated field. 

And of course have experienced all kinds of unfair nonsense in that time due to being a woman.

(I do wonder if men are quite aware of just how much discrimination women still face. It's less overt than it used to be but absolutely still there.)


----------



## krtek a houby (Sep 26, 2021)

Sue said:


> I obviously think the male/female brain thing is  bollocks. Especially given I've spent the last 30 years studying/working in a very male-dominated field.
> 
> And of course have experienced all kinds of unfair nonsense in that time due to being a woman.
> 
> (I do wonder if men are quite aware of just how much discrimination women still face. It's less overt than it used to be but absolutely still there.)



Stunningly overt this side of the world. And not just from the dinosaurs who run the place. There's hope with the younger people, of course. But there's a vast mindset that needs to undergo seismic changes.

(Oddly, more tolerance for LGBT people, although it hasn't translated to marriage. Yet.)


----------



## 19force8 (Sep 26, 2021)

Knotted said:


> It's that but also the radical feminist position that women's oppression is biological sex based and in addition to that that sex not gender defines womanhood/manhood. It's really the last bit that causes the heat as it encompasses beliefs that can (but don't always) include that trans women are imposters and possibly/probably (if you're Sheila Jeffreys) perverts, that trans men are confused lesbians, and that there's a trans agenda pushed by trans rights activists (tra's) trying to trans our kids, eliminate lesbians and sometimes eliminate women all together.


Lately this seems to have gone beyond the biological essentialism of women are one thing and men are another (which I thought wasn't a feminist position anyway) to an emphasis on chromosomes in order to deny the changes brought about by hormones and surgery, bot physically and behaviourally can alter the fact of having XX or XY chromosomes (in GC eyes, obviously). Basing your views on an innate divide between men and women that's rooted in cellular biology strikes me as a gender confirming position rather than gender critical. 

The whole "transing away the gay (or lesbian)" line also flies in the face of reality. From the trans people I've known and from most accounts I've read, the ratio of straight to gay trans people is close to the inverse of that among cis people. Transitioning doesn't (usually) change a person's sexuality and trans people seem fairly evenly distributed across the spectrum. So when Jeffreys and co claim straight men become trans women to gain access to lesbians, but that lesbians become trans men to have relationships with women they're relying on ignorance to get away with a contradictory narrative.


----------



## kropotkin (Sep 26, 2021)

Sue said:


> I'd be embarrassed if I was coming across as a patronising mansplainy twat but yeah, guess we are all different.


You and Edie are coming across badly here - spookyfrank is explaining without ad hominem and yet you both keep stooping to it. 
He (?) could just be disagreeing with you in good faith. That doesn't mean he is "mansplaining". That's just cheap and beneath both of you.


----------



## kropotkin (Sep 26, 2021)

kabbes said:


> Why is it curious to you that Edie, who has a professional interest in reading the Lancet, would be reading the Lancet?


I bet Edie has never read a copy of the lancet. Perhaps an article. Edie?


----------



## bimble (Sep 26, 2021)

I am not going to expend any of my limited stocks of outrage on people like the American Civil Liberties Union. They are obviously not the enemy.
But I do feel that this below is crazy, and totally self defeating. There must be a better way than this.
Am curious whether others here feel differently, think it’s a good decision they made to adapt her statement in this way.


----------



## ice-is-forming (Sep 26, 2021)

bimble said:


> I am not going to expend any of my limited stocks of outrage on people like the American Civil Liberties Union. They are obviously not the enemy.
> But I do feel that this below is crazy, and totally self defeating. There must be a better way than this.
> Am curious whether others here feel differently, think it’s a good decision they made to adapt her statement in this way.
> 
> View attachment 290182



I approve of what's quoted


----------



## kropotkin (Sep 26, 2021)

I agree that it is a bizarre thing to do.


----------



## bimble (Sep 26, 2021)

ice-is-forming said:


> I approve of what's quoted


Does that mean you’d like it if we all, all the time, tried to stop using the words woman and man unless talking about a particular person whose gender identity we were sure of?

Obviously just saying 'people' every time would cause issues, so there'd have to be new language to talk about things like womens representation gender pay gap and so on.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Sep 26, 2021)

kropotkin said:


> I agree that it is a bizarre thing to do.



Probably just misguided though, rather than overtly evil.

The really evil people are only too happy using the word 'woman'. And they're let off Scot free by all this stuff. Instead it's the ACLU and the Vagina Museum taking all the flak. The real bastards out there must be laughing themselves sick at that.


----------



## bimble (Sep 26, 2021)

So what should we say instead of women and men?

In a sentence like for instance when RBG said '[People] belong in all places where decisions are being made. It shouldn't be that [people] are the exception', that obviously doesn't work , it needs something else.
 Or when we talk about the taliban banning half of students from returning to school. what should we say to describe that half.


----------



## ElizabethofYork (Sep 26, 2021)

kropotkin said:


> I bet Edie has never read a copy of the lancet. Perhaps an article. Edie?


Strange thing to say.


----------



## kropotkin (Sep 26, 2021)

Kabbes posted that Edie was probably reading the Lancet (presumably as she's a nurse).


----------



## ice-is-forming (Sep 26, 2021)

bimble said:


> Does that mean you’d like it if we all, all the time, tried to stop using the words woman and man unless talking about a particular person whose gender identity we were sure of?
> 
> Obviously just saying 'people' every time would cause issues, so there'd have to be new language to talk about things like womens representation gender pay gap and so on.



No. Tbh I just believe to have or not have a baby is the person's  choice.


----------



## bimble (Sep 26, 2021)

ice-is-forming said:


> No. Tbh I just believe to have or not have a baby is the person's  choice.


Oh. Yeah I think we all agree on that.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Sep 26, 2021)

bimble said:


> So what should we say instead of women and men?
> 
> In a sentence like for instance when RBG said '[People] belong in all places where decisions are being made. It shouldn't be that [people] are the exception', that obviously doesn't work , it needs something else.



Women seems fine in that context, probably the only word you could use and still retain the intended meaning tbh. 

I've not actually suggested anyone should stop using these words. Don't think anyone else here has either. The only examples I've seen of anyone actually policing the use of language in this context has been the massive internet pile-ons against people who are broadly on the side of the angels trying (and in some cases failing) to use inclusive language.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Sep 26, 2021)

kropotkin said:


> I bet Edie has never read a copy of the lancet. Perhaps an article. Edie?



I don't think we have any evidence of that. The Lancet headline does seem to have been reposted here shortly after it appeared on Twitter and got massively amplified by some people whose usernames have snidey remarks about pronouns in them, but the timing there could be coincidental.


----------



## rutabowa (Sep 26, 2021)

bimble said:


> Does that mean you’d like it if we all, all the time, tried to stop using the words woman and man unless talking about a particular person whose gender identity we were sure of?
> 
> Obviously just saying 'people' every time would cause issues, so there'd have to be new language to talk about things like womens representation gender pay gap and so on.


I think in that quote specifically the change works as a tool to make people think, as e.g. my partner is “they” and had a baby and so without that change would not have been properly included. I don’t think it was vital to change it, don’t think it always needs to be done, and would not make a big deal about it, but I also don’t think it is totally ridiculous to make the change either.


----------



## ice-is-forming (Sep 26, 2021)

bimble said:


> Oh. Yeah I think we all agree on that.



The whole lgbti thing, as is happening is passing me by tbh. I know with www there are no borders but.. There's so many things I put my passion n energy into atm it's ridiculous. No one's in charge ffs. Its like a jigsaw puzzle with no lid and pieces missing. Non-sense. 

Sorry. I do understand the value and importance of language though. I'm angry that the noun woman is being cancelled. That's just wrong.  I'll never cancel it. But then the world is pretty out there atm. Personally ( and sorry to all marginalised people  ) but even taking intersectionality into consideration there are other hills I'd opt to die on first other than saying woman or body ( person would be preferred) with a vagina. 

Iirc some urbs vaginas are in the museum? TP springs to mind.


----------



## rutabowa (Sep 26, 2021)

Tbh if you asked me like a year or 2 ago I probably would have said it was totally ridiculous tho (changing that quote I mean); I have adjusted my views


----------



## _Russ_ (Sep 26, 2021)

Many years ago a female friend of mine came out as a Lesbian, some time later I visited her and used her toilet...placed at a position and height that placed it at about eye level to someone standing facing the toilet (a position almost exclusively used by males of course) was a long lambasting ramble of disgust and hatred  towards men)

I am in no way saying that Lesbians are all man-haters, but be sure that bigoted people exist amongst all sexual preferences even the 'cool' ones and they are often the most vocal when it comes to expressing how 'other' people should treat them


----------



## SpookyFrank (Sep 26, 2021)

_Russ_ said:


> Many years ago a female friend of mine came out as a Lesbian, some time later I visited her and used her toilet...placed at a position and height that placed it at about eye level to someone standing facing the toilet (a position almost exclusively used by males of course) was a long lambasting ramble of disgust and hatred  towards men)
> 
> I am in no way saying that Lesbians are all man-haters, but be sure that bigoted people exist amongst all sexual preferences even the 'cool' ones and they are often the most vocal when it comes to expressing how 'other' people should treat them



Where are you getting 'sexual preference' from any of this?


----------



## Santino (Sep 26, 2021)

_Russ_ said:


> Many years ago a female friend of mine came out as a Lesbian, some time later I visited her and used her toilet...placed at a position and height that placed it at about eye level to someone standing facing the toilet (a position almost exclusively used by males of course) was a long lambasting ramble of disgust and hatred  towards men)
> 
> I am in no way saying that Lesbians are all man-haters, but be sure that bigoted people exist amongst all sexual preferences even the 'cool' ones and they are often the most vocal when it comes to expressing how 'other' people should treat them


Bizarre post.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Sep 26, 2021)

ice-is-forming said:


> I'm angry that the noun woman is being cancelled.



19.74 billion results on google for the word 'woman'. So whoever's cancelling it has got their work cut out for them. I reckon it'll take them at least another fortnight. Add in printed media and spoken language and 'woman' probably has until christmas, maybe even the new year. 

If you don't see me post anything after this it's probably because one of the Kanzellation Korps' death squads got to me. But at least I made it to the top of this nice hill first.


----------



## Knotted (Sep 26, 2021)

The use of the word "woman" gets questioned in certain circumstances (all medical/anatomical as far as I have seen) for inclusion reasons. In all these conversations that I've ever seen about the word "woman" getting cancelled it's extrapolation from these examples not evidence of even a half serious campaign to do this.

It would be really odd if trans women in particular, who want to be understood as women would want to cancel the word "woman".


----------



## Edie (Sep 26, 2021)

The level of sexist bullshit mansplaining on this thread is something else.


----------



## Athos (Sep 26, 2021)

I don't think there's any real risk of the word 'woman' being cancelled (whatever that means).  Rather, people are trying to use different language where the word 'woman' (as it's increasingly coming to be understood) wrongly excludes people. Whilst I don't buy the idea that there's some evil intent/conspiracy behind that, it is sometimes done in a crass way that many women - normal women, not just the lunatic fringe of the 'gender critical' movement - find dehumanising.  I think the Lancet headline is an example of that. I think it's reasonable to acknowledge that and try to use a better form of words, rather than further polarising the situation by defending it all costs.  (Though I understand the temptation to do so, given the keenness with which a loud minority of bigots latch onto such things, to pursue their dodgy agenda.)


----------



## ElizabethofYork (Sep 26, 2021)

SpookyFrank said:


> 19.74 billion results on google for the word 'woman'. So whoever's cancelling it has got their work cut out for them. I reckon it'll take them at least another fortnight. Add in printed media and spoken language and 'woman' probably has until christmas, maybe even the new year.
> 
> If you don't see me post anything after this it's probably because one of the Kanzellation Korps' death squads got to me. But at least I made it to the top of this nice hill first.


The great man has spoken.  He has dismissed women's silly, irrational worries.  And done it in a condescending way, just to remind us how silly we are.  

Nothing more to be said.


----------



## Kevbad the Bad (Sep 26, 2021)

Most of us have grown up with a simple biological understanding of the terms men and women, equating to male and female, and which we extend to every other species on the planet. If people are unhappy with that could they please provide us with a definition of e.g. 'woman' which is workable and we can all agree to use?


----------



## kabbes (Sep 26, 2021)

kropotkin said:


> Kabbes posted that Edie was probably reading the Lancet (presumably as she's a nurse).


It’s beautiful that your assumption was immediately that Edie the woman is a nurse rather than a doctor.


----------



## Shechemite (Sep 26, 2021)

A nurse that’s coming across badly


----------



## kabbes (Sep 26, 2021)

She’s not a nurse, just in case I was being too subtle there.


----------



## mentalchik (Sep 26, 2021)

kropotkin said:


> I bet Edie has never read a copy of the lancet. Perhaps an article. Edie?


you do of course realise how patronising that sounds ?


----------



## kropotkin (Sep 26, 2021)

kabbes said:


> It’s beautiful that your assumption was immediately that Edie the woman is a nurse rather than a doctor.


Is Edie not a nurse? I thought she'd posted pictures of herself wearing a nurse's uniform on the threads here about working in healthcare during Covid?


----------



## rutabowa (Sep 26, 2021)

Kevbad the Bad said:


> Most of us have grown up with a simple biological understanding of the terms men and women, equating to male and female, and which we extend to every other species on the planet. If people are unhappy with that could they please provide us with a definition of e.g. 'woman' which is workable and we can all agree to use?


No it doesn't work like that.... everyone is in different situations and contexts, with different histories, needs and priorities, and it is very messy and complex, it is a slowly evolving process rather than something with a neat quick fix and everyone is going to continually get it wrong. even if there was one single "correct answer", which there definitely isn't, then it would be awful if it was just imposed on everyone top down. It needs to be ongoing, neverending dialogue


----------



## mentalchik (Sep 26, 2021)

This question of language is very interesting as i have yet to even hear the term 'cis' used in my everyday life (and i mix with hundreds of people in my job)....as of yet these terms are reserved purely on the internet ime...there is a huge disconnect


----------



## kropotkin (Sep 26, 2021)

mentalchik said:


> you do of course realise how patronising that sounds ?


Have you ever read a copy? 
If you actually had you'd know why it isn't. Sorry.


----------



## kabbes (Sep 26, 2021)

kropotkin said:


> Is Edie not a nurse? I thought she'd posted pictures of herself wearing a nurse's uniform on the threads here about working in healthcare during Covid?


I don’t know what pictures you’ve seen.


----------



## mentalchik (Sep 26, 2021)

kropotkin said:


> Have you ever read a copy?
> If you actually had you'd know why it isn't. Sorry.


What's that got to do with anything ? i was commenting on how the tone of your comment could be perceived


----------



## Poot (Sep 26, 2021)

kropotkin said:


> Have you ever read a copy?
> If you actually had you'd know why it isn't. Sorry.


I should stop digging now.


----------



## kabbes (Sep 26, 2021)

kropotkin said:


> Have you ever read a copy?
> If you actually had you'd know why it isn't. Sorry.


But maybe a doctor might read it, hmm?


----------



## kropotkin (Sep 26, 2021)

kabbes said:


> But maybe a doctor might read it, hmm?


Vastly more likely to read the Lancet than a nurse, yes.


----------



## kabbes (Sep 26, 2021)

kropotkin said:


> Vastly more likely to read the Lancet than a nurse, yes.





Poot said:


> I should stop digging now.


----------



## kropotkin (Sep 26, 2021)

You think it's incorrect that a doctor is more likely to read the Lancet than a nurse?


----------



## Sue (Sep 26, 2021)

kropotkin said:


> You and Edie are coming across badly here - spookyfrank is explaining without ad hominem and yet you both keep stooping to it.
> He (?) could just be disagreeing with you in good faith. That doesn't mean he is "mansplaining". That's just cheap and beneath both of you.


I think you should maybe concentrate on how you're coming across tbh as this really isn't good:



kropotkin said:


> I bet Edie has never read a copy of the lancet. Perhaps an article. Edie?


(For full disclosure, I've never read The Lancet. I do quite often look through The BMJ though and read a few articles. I am not a medical professional of any kind .)


----------



## Looby (Sep 26, 2021)

kropotkin said:


> You think it's incorrect that a doctor is more likely to read the Lancet than a nurse?


You are assuming that the poster is a nurse and not a doctor. I think people are wondering if this is because she is a woman.


----------



## kropotkin (Sep 26, 2021)

It isn't. But go off.

(as in, I know that's what they are implying)


----------



## kabbes (Sep 26, 2021)

kropotkin said:


> You think it's incorrect that a doctor is more likely to read the Lancet than a nurse?


Oh my God how much rope do you need before you just bow out of something gracefully?   You’ve patronisingly assumed the woman with an interest in medicine must be a nurse rather than a doctor, you’ve patronisingly assumed that people who aren’t doctors wouldn’t read The Lancet (which again is not particularly valid, and referring to what is “more likely” for a group of people is irrelevant when you’re talking about the act of one specific individual) and even when the errors of both these assumptions are pointed out, you still want to double down on them?


----------



## Looby (Sep 26, 2021)

kropotkin said:


> It isn't. But go off.
> 
> (as in, I know that's what they are implying)


Well, if you’ve got the point and are still going then you can’t be helped. 😄


----------



## SpookyFrank (Sep 26, 2021)

ElizabethofYork said:


> The great man has spoken.  He has dismissed women's silly, irrational worries.  And done it in a condescending way, just to remind us how silly we are.
> 
> Nothing more to be said.



I mean this is also pretty condescending.

What's worse than being condescending though is saying shit like 'the word woman is being cancelled' and not bothering to specify what that means in real terms, who is doing it, how they're doing it or why they're doing it. If anyone has anything on any of those points I'm all ears. Because so far we've got two tweets to go on and that's about it.


----------



## ice-is-forming (Sep 26, 2021)

SpookyFrank said:


> I mean this is also pretty condescending.
> 
> What's worse than being condescending though is saying shit like 'the word woman is being cancelled' and not bothering to specify what that means in real terms, who is doing it, how they're doing it or why they're doing it. If anyone has anything on any of those points I'm all ears. Because so far we've got two tweets to go on and that's about it.



Oo you've quoted me. I've honestly never seen this happening irl, but I'm in Hicksville , where 75% of people couldn't explain what the word misogyny means fwiw,   and therefore it's all still pretty old skool sexist. 

But I read urban and the www and there's no smoke without fire. And many women  I admire here seem bothered by it so...


----------



## Knotted (Sep 26, 2021)

Sue said:


> Well sure, some of it obviously is. I don't often hear of men not getting jobs (for example) because they're of childbearing/rearing age. (And yes this does still happen to women.)
> 
> All that ^. If someone feels they are/presents as a man or a woman of whatever sexuality -- each to their own and whatever makes folks happy.
> 
> ...



I certainly think there's room for considered discussion on all this, and I'm really not the one to be having it. But there's corners of the internet that find some expression on here that want to take this down some knee jerk culture war direction and I hate that that doesn't get much push back and that it has driven trans posters away. At the centre of this recent row is a woman using certain language to describe women's bodies in the context of women's health and it's here on a thread about transphobia and the outrage turned up to 11 and to me it looks like trans people are under fire again - because that's certainly what's happening with this story elsewhere. And it's true that nobody is listening to each other and that there's lots of mansplaining going on (and probably from me as well) but that was always going to be the outcome. I should probably just leave it up to smokedout to deal with, but it's got to be lonely for them.


----------



## krtek a houby (Sep 26, 2021)

_Russ_ said:


> Many years ago a female friend of mine came out as a Lesbian, some time later I visited her and used her toilet...placed at a position and height that placed it at about eye level to someone standing facing the toilet (a position almost exclusively used by males of course) was a long lambasting ramble of disgust and hatred  towards men)
> 
> I am in no way saying that Lesbians are all man-haters, but be sure that bigoted people exist amongst all sexual preferences even the 'cool' ones and they are often the most vocal when it comes to expressing how 'other' people should treat them



Who are the "cool" ones?


----------



## Athos (Sep 26, 2021)

Knotted said:


> I certainly think there's room for considered discussion on all this, and I'm really not the one to be having it. But there's corners of the internet that find some expression on here that want to take this down some knee jerk culture war direction and I hate that that doesn't get much push back and that it has driven trans posters away. At the centre of this recent row is a woman using certain language to describe women's bodies in the context of women's health and it's here on a thread about transphobia and the outrage turned up to 11 and to me it looks like trans people are under fire again - because that's certainly what's happening with this story elsewhere. And it's true that nobody is listening to each other and that there's lots of mansplaining going on (and probably from me as well) but that was always going to be the outcome. I should probably just leave it up to smokedout to deal with, but it's got to be lonely for them.



Trans and cis women have left over this, which is a shame. And you're right that sometimes we're at risk of going down the polarised culture war route, which is why we need a bit more nuances and empathy and less defensiveness on both 'sides.'  Like, when Edie explained that she felt dehumanised and objectified by that language, blokes sneering, mocking, patronising, and making unsupported allegations, rather than conceding there might have been a trans-inclusive wording that didn't reduce women to "bodies with vaginas."


----------



## Knotted (Sep 26, 2021)

Athos said:


> Trans and cis women have left over this, which is a shame. And you're right that sometimes we're at risk of going down the polarised culture war route, which is why we need a bit more nuances and empathy and less defensiveness on both 'sides.'  Like, when Edie explained that she felt dehumanised and objectified by that language, blokes sneering, mocking, patronising, and making unsupported allegations, rather than conceding there might have been a trans-inclusive wording that didn't reduce women to "bodies with vaginas."



First impressions on something are difficult to get over. If you see this on the front cover of the Lancet or you see it in a twitter war then you might get the impression that the phrase "bodies with vaginas" is being substituted for the word "women" and it's this political correctness with a weird dehumanising bent and that it mirrors objectifying language. I totally understand that impression, it's not difficult to understand, so you don't need to explain it to me.

However it is very plain that Edie has got hold of the wrong end of the stick. It isn't a substitution of "bodies with vaginas" for "women", and it's plain that it isn't in context. When the author says "bodies" they mean "bodies", it's about human anatomy not humans, it's not a euphemism it's not even political correctness gawn mad. Maybe there's a debate about how to best talk about human bodies and women's bodies in particular and about editorial decisions in the Lancet (leave me out of that!), but please let the medical profession talk about bodies - it's kind of their thing.


----------



## Athos (Sep 26, 2021)

Knotted said:


> First impressions on something are difficult to get over. If you see this on the front cover of the Lancet or you see it in a twitter war then you might get the impression that the phrase "bodies with vaginas" is being substituted for the word "women" and it's this political correctness with a weird dehumanising bent and that it mirrors objectifying language. I totally understand that impression, it's not difficult to understand, so you don't need to explain it to me.
> 
> However it is very plain that Edie has got hold of the wrong end of the stick. It isn't a substitution of "bodies with vaginas" for "women", and it's plain that it isn't in context. When the author says "bodies" they mean "bodies", it's about human anatomy not humans, it's not a euphemism it's not even political correctness gawn mad. Maybe there's a debate about how to best talk about human bodies and women's bodies in particular and about editorial decisions in the Lancet (leave me out of that!), but please let the medical profession talk about bodies - it's kind of their thing.



I don't think it's at all plain that she's got the wrong end of the stick.

Nor do I think that medicine exists in a bubble; it infoms and is informed by social attitudes.

And I certainly don't think they should be allowed to get on with it on the basis that it's their thing; such deferrence had led to some awful things being done to people in the name of medicine.

Though I do agree there's scope for a sensible discussion about how we refer to people and their bodies, particularly women.


----------



## Knotted (Sep 26, 2021)

Athos said:


> I don't think it's at all plain that she's got the wrong end of the stick.
> 
> Nor do I think that medicine exists in a bubble; it infoms and is informed by social attitudes.
> 
> ...



I think it's entirely proper to talk using objective language about human bodies in an anatomical/medical context. I very much wouldn't want it any other way. There may be a whole discussion about how that's done and how mistakes were made here. I don't feel qualified for or for that matter interested in that discussion.


----------



## PursuedByBears (Sep 26, 2021)

I think this is a discussion for women to have and men should shut up about it tbh


----------



## Athos (Sep 26, 2021)

Knotted said:


> I think it's entirely proper to talk using objective language about human bodies in an anatomical/medical context. I very much wouldn't want it any other way. There may be a whole discussion about how that's done and how mistakes were made here. I don't feel qualified for or for that matter interested in that discussion.



It's naive to think this is just a matter of objective language.  The language used wasn't even scientifically accurate; a dead cow is a "body with a vagina", an objective term would be 'biologically female human.'  Also, increasingly, medics are encouraged to see patients as more than a collection of biological systems.


----------



## Knotted (Sep 26, 2021)

Athos said:


> It's naive to think this is just a matter of objective language.  The language used wasn't even scientifically accurate; a dead cow is a "body with a vagina", an objective term would be 'biologically female human.'  Also, increasingly, medics are encouraged to see patients as more than a collection of biological systems.



The author wasn't talking about "biologically female humans" she was talking about women's bodies. Hence bodies. Bodies.

You might be right about your last sentence there though. I don't feel that way, I want to be objectified in a medical context. I want to be a person with asthma rather than asthma man. I'm probably not understanding the nuances though and I'm sure there's a good conversation to be had somewhere.


----------



## Knotted (Sep 26, 2021)

PursuedByBears said:


> I think this is a discussion for women to have and men should shut up about it tbh



Absolutely. On its own thread away from the heat.


----------



## Athos (Sep 26, 2021)

Knotted said:


> ... she was talking about women's bodies. Hence bodies. Bodies.



She wasn't, though. Else she could have simply said 'women's bodies.'  She was (quite rightly) including e.g. trans men, some of whom have a vagina.  But she could have used some words that were trans inclusive but didn't dehumanise women by referring to them as "bodies with vaginas" e.g. 'cis women, and those trans men/non- binary people who have a vagina' or even 'people born biologically female who have not undergone sex reassignment surgery.'




Knotted said:


> I want to be a person with asthma rather than asthma man



And being seen as a *person* with asthma is different from being an *asthmatic* *body*.


----------



## Knotted (Sep 26, 2021)

Athos said:


> She wasn't, though. Else she could have simply said 'women's bodies.'  She was (quite rightly) including e.g. trans men, some of whom have a vagina.  But she could have used some words that were trans inclusive but didn't dehumanise women by referring to them as "bodies with vaginas" e.g. 'cis women, and those trans men/non- binary people who have a vagina' or even 'people born biologically female who have not undergone sex reassignment surgery.'



She wasn't doing it to include trans men* because she goes on to talk about "women", so this has absolutely nothing to do with trans inclusion. She probably just thought she was being poetic and the whole thing was about vaginas so it makes sense as a phrase in context. There really is nothing to see here other than a scientist writing in a clumsy manner (shocker).

*Contrary to what I said earlier that is. I'm as guilty of impulsive knee jerk reactions as anyone.


----------



## Athos (Sep 26, 2021)

Knotted said:


> There really is nothing to see here other than a scientist writing in a clumsy manner (shocker).



I know it's nothing more than clumsiness (I don't buy the trans conspiracy to erase women bullshit). All I'm saying is that, given such clumsiness upsets many women, we should try harder to avoid it, rather than defend it come what may, as some men on this thread seem determined to do.


----------



## Knotted (Sep 26, 2021)

Athos said:


> I know it's nothing more than clumsiness (I don't buy the trans conspiracy to erase women bullshit). All I'm saying is that, given such clumsiness upsets many women, we should try harder to avoid it, rather than defend it come what may, as some men on this thread seem determined to do.



There's a sweary old bloke at work. He always apologises afterwards if there's a woman in the room. I guess that's probably what the patriarchy looks like 90% of the time. Special politeness and sensitivity and general "be careful what you say around women".


----------



## ginger_syn (Sep 26, 2021)

Lot of knee jerking going on in this thread, still hardly surprising as nothing changes and as a woman i find Edie's outrage a  total frothy mouthed joke and i lost any  respect for their opinions on this subject a long time ago.


----------



## Athos (Sep 26, 2021)

Knotted said:


> There's a sweary old bloke at work. He always apologises afterwards if there's a woman in the room. I guess that's probably what the patriarchy looks like 90% of the time. Special politeness and sensitivity and general "be careful what you say around women".



Yes, avoiding language that women tell you they find dehumanising and objectifying is exactly the same as that.


----------



## ginger_syn (Sep 26, 2021)

Oh and well done those still being reasonable with the kneejerk twazzocks.


----------



## smokedout (Sep 26, 2021)

Knotted said:


> She wasn't doing it to include trans men* because she goes on to talk about "women", so this has absolutely nothing to do with trans inclusion. She probably just thought she was being poetic and the whole thing was about vaginas so it makes sense as a phrase in context. There really is nothing to see here other than a scientist writing in a clumsy manner (shocker).
> 
> *Contrary to what I said earlier that is. I'm as guilty of impulsive knee jerk reactions as anyone.



I think this is probably true and the reason they used that quote on the cover was not some defiant statement of trans inclusion but because the theme of this month's journal was demystifying and destigmatising women's healthcare and they wanted to put the word vagina on the front cover.  It's very likely nothing to do with trans inclusive language at all, they just didn't recognise that it could be seen in a different context.


----------



## Edie (Sep 26, 2021)

Knotted said:


> There's a sweary old bloke at work. He always apologises afterwards if there's a woman in the room. I guess that's probably what the patriarchy looks like 90% of the time. Special politeness and sensitivity and general "be careful what you say around women".


Here we have a man who genuinely, in middle age and no doubt professing himself to be a feminist, thinks that 90% of patriarchy is thinking you have to be careful what you say around women.

I’m serious. That’s what he actually said.

And I think this is the actual issue. Men like you, and many of you posting over the last few pages, you just _don’t get it_. 

You do not understand the history of women’s oppression, or objectification, so you literally just cannot see why a phrase like “bodies with vaginas” might be problematic. And women objecting are just “outraged”. And need to have it explained that they are wrong.

Lol at Knotted and smokedout agreeing it’s all just a big misunderstanding the silly women, who probably don’t even read or understand medical journals, are making.

Patronising men. Fuck off 🖕🏻


----------



## Kevbad the Bad (Sep 26, 2021)

Kevbad the Bad said:


> Most of us have grown up with a simple biological understanding of the terms men and women, equating to male and female, and which we extend to every other species on the planet. If people are unhappy with that could they please provide us with a definition of e.g. 'woman' which is workable and we can all agree to use?





rutabowa said:


> No it doesn't work like that.... everyone is in different situations and contexts, with different histories, needs and priorities, and it is very messy and complex, it is a slowly evolving process rather than something with a neat quick fix and everyone is going to continually get it wrong. even if there was one single "correct answer", which there definitely isn't, then it would be awful if it was just imposed on everyone top down. It needs to be ongoing, neverending dialogue





PursuedByBears said:


> I think this is a discussion for women to have and men should shut up about it tbh


I see where you're coming from PursuedByBears But if you are no longer able to define the words 'men' and 'women' that becomes very difficult.


----------



## ElizabethofYork (Sep 26, 2021)

Knotted said:


> There's a sweary old bloke at work. He always apologises afterwards if there's a woman in the room. I guess that's probably what the patriarchy looks like 90% of the time. Special politeness and sensitivity and general "be careful what you say around women".


Oh, that's what you "guess", is it?


----------



## Knotted (Sep 26, 2021)

Athos said:


> Yes, avoiding language that women tell you they find dehumanising and objectifying is exactly the same as that.



I think the communication issues might be more complicated than you think and I'm not touching them with a barge pole. And this whole, well Edie's wrong but best recognise her hurt is bullshit. She thinks it is objectification, she doesn't just "find it objectifying". She's just wrong, I respect her enough to just come out and say that.


----------



## hitmouse (Sep 26, 2021)

spanglechick said:


> What pisses me off quite a lot, is when trans-inclusive feminist women like me post on the thread, and both sides ignore me so they can continue to represent this as a GC women vs misogynistic men debate.


Just checking, can anyone else see this post, or is it just me? I swear spanglechick made a post here, but no-one seems to have responded to it, so perhaps it's my imagination playing tricks on me.


----------



## Athos (Sep 26, 2021)

Knotted said:


> I think the communication issues might be more complicated than you think and I'm not touching them with a barge pole. And this whole, well Edie's wrong but best recognise her hurt is bullshit. She thinks it is objectification, she doesn't just "find it objectifying". She's just wrong, I respect her enough to just come out and say that.


Edie did refer to finding it dehumanising:



Edie said:


> Seriously, _when_ did you think you started feeling entitled to weigh in telling those stupid women that they are wrong *to feel* dehumanised by being referred to as a ‘bodies with vaginas’.





Edie said:


> This is just flannel. I told you that *I found* women being referred to as a group as ‘bodies with vaginas’ dehumanising, and you are defending it. I’m asking you, a man, why you feel you have that entitlement.



But, in any event, I'm not just avoiding saying she's wrong; I don't think she is.   Referring to women as "bodies with vaginas" *is* objectifying - it literally reduces people to a physical thing - whether that's the writer's intention or not, regardless of whether or not everyone perceives it that way, and notwithstanding your assertion that she's "just wrong."


----------



## Athos (Sep 26, 2021)

hitmouse said:


> Just checking, can anyone else see this post, or is it just me? I swear spanglechick made a post here, but no-one seems to have responded to it, so perhaps it's my imagination playing tricks on me.


17 people have 'liked' it.


----------



## Sue (Sep 26, 2021)

Knotted said:


> There's a sweary old bloke at work. He always apologises afterwards if there's a woman in the room. I guess that's probably what the patriarchy looks like 90% of the time. Special politeness and sensitivity and general "be careful what you say around women".


I think if most of the time it was just old blokes apologising when they swore, no-one would be that bothered about the patriarchy.  

Do you really think this is what it looks like 90% of the time? What does the other 10% look like out of interest?


----------



## xenon (Sep 26, 2021)

This thread could well be responsible for a shortage of shovels quite soon.


----------



## Santino (Sep 26, 2021)

Sue said:


> Do you really think this is what it looks like 90% of the time? What does the other 10% look like out of interest?


Men holding doors open for women, that kind of thing.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Sep 26, 2021)

spanglechick said:


> What pisses me off quite a lot, is when trans-inclusive feminist women like me post on the thread, and both sides ignore me so they can continue to represent this as a GC women vs misogynistic men debate.



I considered quoting your post in a sort of, 'look here's a woman who isn't upset by this kind of inclusive language so it's clearly not fair to claim or insinuate that women in general feel attacked by it' way but it felt like that would be overstepping. I did however notice the lack of any response to what you said.


----------



## Knotted (Sep 26, 2021)

Sue said:


> I think if most of the time it was just old blokes apologising when they swore, no-one would be that bothered about the patriarchy.
> 
> Do you really think this is what it looks like 90% of the time? What does the other 10% look like out of interest?



Same bloke thinks women shouldn't be working in the industry because they're too sensitive. There's real discrimination there, just not visible 90% of the time.


----------



## Athos (Sep 26, 2021)

Knotted said:


> Same bloke thinks women shouldn't be working in the industry because they're too sensitive. There's real discrimination there, just not visible 90% of the time.


I have a sneaking suspicion that it, along with many other forms of discrimination, is more visible to the vast majority of women than it is to you!


----------



## l'Otters (Sep 26, 2021)

ginger_syn said:


> Lot of knee jerking going on in this thread, still hardly surprising as nothing changes and as a woman i find Edie's outrage a  total frothy mouthed joke and i lost any  respect for their opinions on this subject a long time ago.


100% this.


----------



## smokedout (Sep 26, 2021)

Edie said:


> Lol at Knotted and smokedout agreeing it’s all just a big misunderstanding the silly women, who probably don’t even read or understand medical journals, are making.


You're quite wrong about this.  I don't think there's been any misunderstanding.  I don't think the people who have largely amplified this on social media, and many of them, if not most were men incidentally, could care less whether it's true or whether it has been misconstrued.  It's purpose is to amplify hostility towards trans people and bolster their conspiratorial narrative of a society destroying trans plot.  If it turns out this is nothing to do with trans inclusion or trans people at all, which seems quite likely, it won't matter, they'll be onto something else.  The goal of the Gender Critical movement by and large is no longer a debate, or an honest appraisal of the different issues involved, or an attempt at reaching a sensible compromise, it is simply to use anything and everything to portray trans people in the worst possible light in the hope of 'peaking' people and radicalising them against any and all social, legal or medical accommodations for trans people.  And if that causes direct harm to trans people, in this case making healthcare more difficult for trans men to access, then that is all to the good - because they don't want trans people to exist.


----------



## l'Otters (Sep 26, 2021)

Edie said:


> Here we have a man who genuinely, in middle age and no doubt professing himself to be a feminist, thinks that 90% of patriarchy is thinking you have to be careful what you say around women.
> 
> I’m serious. That’s what he actually said.
> 
> ...


Unfortunate bit of misgendering there Edie. 
Genuine mistake?


----------



## l'Otters (Sep 26, 2021)

spanglechick said:


> What pisses me off quite a lot, is when trans-inclusive feminist women like me post on the thread, and both sides ignore me so they can continue to represent this as a GC women vs misogynistic men debate.
> 
> And since I’m expressing irritation, I’ve definitely seen GC people, both on urban and elsewhere, talk about “penis havers/owners/people”, when trying to address the physiology shared by cis men and trans women.


Well said on both points, thanks for speaking up from another trans inclusive feminist.


----------



## Edie (Sep 26, 2021)

l'Otters said:


> Well said on both points, thanks for speaking up from another trans inclusive feminist.


fwiw I think penis-people or ‘bodies with penises’ is also dehumanising and clumsy. It does not have the same history of oppression behind it though. It’s just a clumsy use of language.


----------



## HoratioCuthbert (Sep 26, 2021)

l'Otters said:


> Well said on both points, thanks for speaking up from another trans inclusive feminist


Same from me too .


----------



## l'Otters (Sep 26, 2021)

Edie said:


> fwiw I think penis-people or ‘bodies with penises’ is also dehumanising and clumsy. It does not have the same history of oppression behind it though. It’s just a clumsy use of language.


You reckon. 

Given how often you’ve told all the men on this thread to butt out as it’s not about them. Perhaps by the same token, you wouldn’t be reliably informed as to the relative seriousness of these uses of dehumanising language.


----------



## bimble (Sep 26, 2021)

Kier starmer in this looks like he’d rather have had any other question at all. It’s kind of a lose lose question isn’t it but his reply so entirely without conviction. Totally crap and will impress nobody.


----------



## Edie (Sep 26, 2021)

l'Otters said:


> You reckon.
> 
> Given how often you’ve told all the men on this thread to butt out as it’s not about them. Perhaps by the same token, you wouldn’t be reliably informed as to the relative seriousness of these uses of dehumanising language.


Please continue 🤔


----------



## Edie (Sep 26, 2021)

bimble said:


> Kier starmer in this looks like he’d rather have had any other question at all. It’s kind of a lose lose question isn’t it but his reply so entirely without conviction. Totally crap and will impress nobody.



He looks baffled and desperately trying to parse it so he can say the right fucking thing to the media.


----------



## l'Otters (Sep 26, 2021)

Edie said:


> Please continue 🤔


The post of yours which I was replying to could have just stopped at the end of the first sentence and we’d be fine.


----------



## bimble (Sep 26, 2021)

Edie said:


> He looks baffled and desperately trying to parse it so he can say the right fucking thing to the media.


He looks scared I thought yeah.


----------



## Edie (Sep 26, 2021)

l'Otters said:


> The post of yours which I was replying to could have just stopped at the end of the first sentence and we’d be fine.


Could you just come out with your point please instead of half saying things.


----------



## spanglechick (Sep 26, 2021)

Edie said:


> fwiw I think penis-people or ‘bodies with penises’ is also dehumanising and clumsy. It does not have the same history of oppression behind it though. It’s just a clumsy use of language.


The people calling out this instance of similar language seemed to have no problem when it was used towards trans women in the past, is my point.  And it was being used quite a lot here.  


While I don’t believe the oppression of cis men is equal to the oppression of cis women, I do believe that when one side has embraced a linguistic structure explicitly to be able to refer to the genital/reproductive organs of trans people, and bracket them with the cis people who share that physiology in situations where that seems relevant, - and that this was met with no protest, it seems unreasonable if the same language is used for the explicit purpose of inclusivity and yet is met with outcry.  

I am a person with a vagina.  I am also a human. I am also a Caucasian.  I am a Londoner. I am a teacher. I am middle aged.  I am a woman.  It doesn’t erase my womanhood if I’m described with a partial label that more accurately describes the group in question. 

There are so many actual oppressions on women: male violence, rape culture, narrow western beauty standards, offensively gendered kids’ clothing, women’s over-representation below the poverty line, unpaid caring duties… and I’m being asked to believe that the word “woman” is under some kind of existential threat?


----------



## SpookyFrank (Sep 26, 2021)

bimble said:


> Kier starmer in this looks like he’d rather have had any other question at all.



He looks like that no matter what you ask him. He even got the alpaca thing wrong.


----------



## Athos (Sep 26, 2021)

SpookyFrank said:


> He looks like that no matter what you ask him. He even got the alpaca thing wrong.


He never says anything with conviction, from the heart - always thinking through how it will play - such that, even when he does say something I would otherwise agree with, I doubt his sincerity.  Hopeless.


----------



## Edie (Sep 26, 2021)

spanglechick said:


> The people calling out this instance of similar language seemed to have no problem when it was used towards trans women in the past, is my point.  And it was being used quite a lot here.
> 
> 
> While I don’t believe the oppression of cis men is equal to the oppression of cis women, I do believe that when one side has embraced a linguistic structure explicitly to be able to refer to the genital/reproductive organs of trans people, and bracket them with the cis people who share that physiology in situations where that seems relevant, - and that this was met with no protest, it seems unreasonable if the same language is used for the explicit purpose of inclusivity and yet is met with outcry.
> ...


You mean people on here have called transwomen ‘bodies or people with penises’? Or am I misunderstanding?


----------



## Knotted (Sep 26, 2021)

Athos said:


> I have a sneaking suspicion that it, along with many other forms of discrimination, is more visible to the vast majority of women than it is to you!



It very probably is and that's my point. There's benign sexism which most blokes probably don't notice even when they're doing it themselves and it's not unrelated to more hostile forms. I just think maybe the broader discussion on language might be more complicated than you think and I think it should be up to women to talk about. I think behind the noise there may be more takes on this than you might think. I don't understand your desire to pronounce on it. I'm only interested in countering the blatantly ridiculous/harmful stuff.


----------



## Athos (Sep 26, 2021)

Knotted said:


> It very probably is and that's my point. There's benign sexism which most blokes probably don't notice even when they're doing it themselves and it's not unrelated to more hostile forms. I just think maybe the broader discussion on language might be more complicated than you think and I think it should be up to women to talk about. I think behind the noise there may be more takes on this than you might think. I don't understand your desire to pronounce on it. I'm only interested in countering the blatantly ridiculous/harmful stuff.


I'm aware how complex it is. Of course women should be heard, but there's no reason why men shouldn't, too, as long as that's done respectfully (which has been my issue with how some people on this thread have responded, recently). After all, gender affects all of us.


----------



## l'Otters (Sep 26, 2021)

Edie said:


> Could you just come out with your point please instead of half saying things.


You’ve made it abundantly clear that the phrase bodies with vaginas applies to you personally and that the phrase penis haver does not. With this in mind, I don’t think you are in a position to arbitrate on the former being more harmful than the latter, or whatever it was you were trying to assert in the second and third sentences of your post.


I really don’t think it’d be wide of the mark if I were to say you have no idea what it’s like to experience dysphoria, and as such you’re in no position to dismiss that language as merely being clumsy. I wouldn’t normally be quite so blunt about such things but given you’ve been telling the cis men to butt out of this discussion altogether on a similar basis, I think it’s fair enough.


----------



## Athos (Sep 26, 2021)

l'Otters said:


> You’ve made it abundantly clear that the phrase bodies with vaginas applies to you personally and that the phrase penis haver does not. With this in mind, I don’t think you are in a position to arbitrate on the former being more harmful than the latter, or whatever it was you were trying to assert in the second and third sentences of your post.


You really don't think we live in a culture which has far more of a problem with the objectification of women than of men?  Seriously?


----------



## l'Otters (Sep 26, 2021)

edit: added to previous post.


----------



## Cid (Sep 26, 2021)

Athos said:


> I'm aware how complex it is. Of course women should be heard, but there's no reason why men shouldn't, too, *as long as that's done respectfully* *(which has been my issue with how some people on this thread have responded, recently)*. After all, gender affects all of us.



<spits drink over keyboard>

<retreats back to sidelines>


----------



## Knotted (Sep 26, 2021)

Athos said:


> I'm aware how complex it is. Of course women should be heard, but there's no reason why men shouldn't, too, as long as that's done respectfully (which has been my issue with how some people on this thread have responded, recently). After all, gender affects all of us.



Well, I'm not aware of how complex it is! How would I possibly know what different opinions might be lurking especially when there's so much anger that many women may not want to venture a view. And my views on it are really irrelevant. It doesn't affect me.


----------



## Edie (Sep 26, 2021)

Knotted said:


> It very probably is and that's my point. There's benign sexism which most blokes probably don't notice even when they're doing it themselves and it's not unrelated to more hostile forms. I just think maybe the broader discussion on language might be more complicated than you think and I think it should be up to women to talk about. I think behind the noise there may be more takes on this than you might think. I don't understand your desire to pronounce on it. I'm only interested in countering the blatantly ridiculous/harmful stuff.


We have talked about it ta. Jfc.


l'Otters said:


> You’ve made it abundantly clear that the phrase bodies with vaginas applies to you personally and that the phrase penis haver does not. With this in mind, I don’t think you are in a position to arbitrate on the former being more harmful than the latter, or whatever it was you were trying to assert in the second and third sentences of your post.
> 
> 
> I really don’t think it’d be wide of the mark if I were to say you have no idea what it’s like to experience dysphoria, and as such you’re in no position to dismiss that language as merely being clumsy. I wouldn’t normally be quite so blunt about such things but given you’ve been telling the cis men to butt out of this discussion altogether on a similar basis, I think it’s fair enough.


I am a female/woman. I have never experienced gender dysphoria.

As a woman though, I absolutely am in the position to say that female objectification has been significantly worse than male objectification. It is part of sexism, and it is based on our biology.

I’m still not entirely sure of what you are getting at. You can’t possibly be arguing that sexism doesn’t exist. Are you arguing that as I have not experienced gender dysphoria I cannot object to phrases like ‘bodies with vaginas’


----------



## Edie (Sep 26, 2021)

Knotted said:


> Well, I'm not aware of how complex it is! How would I possibly know what different opinions might be lurking especially when there's so much anger that many women may not want to venture a view. And my views on it are really irrelevant. It doesn't affect me.


Shut up then. You’ve nothing interesting to say.


----------



## Knotted (Sep 26, 2021)

Edie said:


> Shut up then. You’ve nothing interesting to say.



Well I'll say it shouldn't have been put on this thread because that made it about trans people and not about women. And I'll leave it at that.


----------



## Edie (Sep 26, 2021)

Knotted said:


> Well I'll say it shouldn't have been put on this thread because that made it about trans people and not about women. And I'll leave it at that.


----------



## Magnus McGinty (Sep 26, 2021)

Seems bizarre to me that some are arguing for calling of trans women 'a body with a penis' given the usual line is 'trans women are women'.


----------



## Santino (Sep 26, 2021)

Knotted said:


> It very probably is and that's my point. There's benign sexism which most blokes probably don't notice even when they're doing it themselves and it's not unrelated to more hostile forms. I just think maybe the broader discussion on language might be more complicated than you think and I think it should be up to women to talk about. I think behind the noise there may be more takes on this than you might think. I don't understand your desire to pronounce on it. I'm only interested in countering the blatantly ridiculous/harmful stuff.


'Benign sexism'.


----------



## ElizabethofYork (Sep 26, 2021)

Magnus McGinty said:


> Seems bizarre to me that some are arguing for calling of trans women 'a body with a penis' given the usual line is 'trans women are women'.


Christ.


----------



## Knotted (Sep 26, 2021)

Santino said:


> 'Benign sexism'.



Google it.


----------



## Magnus McGinty (Sep 26, 2021)

ElizabethofYork said:


> Christ.


What's wrong though? Surely this is where this rather odd word policing ends up?


----------



## Santino (Sep 26, 2021)

Knotted said:


> Google it.


Yes, dear.


----------



## Edie (Sep 26, 2021)

Magnus McGinty said:


> Seems bizarre to me that some are arguing for calling of trans women 'a body with a penis' given the usual line is 'trans women are women'.


No one is arguing that. That would be unbelievably crass. Cruel even.


----------



## smokedout (Sep 26, 2021)

Edie said:


> No one is arguing that. That would be unbelievably crass. Cruel even.



And yet you seem to think trans men actively want to be called bodies with vaginas and that this was the reason for The Lancet cover.

In reality, I think most trans women would prefer trans inclusive language such as people (not bodies) with a prostate in healthcare settings only, just as trans men in healthcare settings might prefer to be called people with a vagina than being referred to as women.  But more importantly, accurate and trans inclusive language within healthcare saves lives and prevents medical staff making errors due to uncertainty or lack of understanding of trans people.  But hey, we know cis people's feelings are more important than trans people's lives.


----------



## Edie (Sep 26, 2021)

smokedout said:


> And yet you seem to think trans men actively want to be called bodies with vaginas and that this was the reason for The Lancet cover.
> 
> In reality, I think most trans women would prefer trans inclusive language such as people (not bodies) with a prostate in healthcare settings only, just as trans men in healthcare settings might prefer to be called people with a vagina than being referred to as women.  But more importantly, accurate and trans inclusive language within healthcare saves lives and prevents medical staff making errors due to uncertainty or lack of understanding of trans people.  But hey, we know cis people's feelings are more important than trans people's lives.


I don’t think _anyone_ wants to be called ‘bodies with vaginas’. It’s completely dehumanising, completely deaf to women’s history of objectification,  and it’s absolutely ridiculous that we’ve even got to this point.


----------



## Athos (Sep 26, 2021)

smokedout said:


> And yet you seem to think trans men actively want to be called bodies with vaginas and that this was the reason for The Lancet cover.
> 
> In reality, I think most trans women would prefer trans inclusive language such as people (not bodies) with a prostate in healthcare settings only, just as trans men in healthcare settings might prefer to be called people with a vagina than being referred to as women.  But more importantly, accurate and trans inclusive language within healthcare saves lives and prevents medical staff making errors due to uncertainty or lack of understanding of trans people.  But hey, we know cis people's feelings are more important than trans people's lives.



It's not a zero sum game; there's no need for the two to be in conflict. It'd be the easiest thing in the world to use wording that's trans inclusive but doesn't dehumanise or objectify women.

And a culture of objectifying/dehumanising women leads to thousands of murders, rapes, and assaults (including of trans women); it's a bit crass to dismiss concern about that as "cis people's feelings."


----------



## Edie (Sep 26, 2021)

smokedout said:


> But hey, we know cis people's feelings are more important than trans people's lives.


What a cheap shot. That’s the measure of you. Two bodies with vaginas die every week in the uk at the hands of bodies with penises so don’t go giving me that shit.


----------



## Magnus McGinty (Sep 26, 2021)

Edie said:


> No one is arguing that. That would be unbelievably crass. Cruel even.


Well not directly, no. But if you hold a mirror to some of the arguments then they actually are.


----------



## smokedout (Sep 26, 2021)

Edie said:


> I don’t think _anyone_ wants to be called ‘bodies with vaginas’. It’s completely dehumanising, completely deaf to women’s history of objectification,  and it’s absolutely ridiculous that we’ve even got to this point.



Or perhaps you have called this wrong and The Lancet cover had nothing at all to do with attempting to use trans inclusive language.


----------



## kabbes (Sep 26, 2021)

FWIW (which I am aware is fuck-all), I don’t think the Lancet’s headline has anything to do whatsoever with trans-friendliness. I don’t think that trying to be trans-inclusive even entered the editor’s head. Instead, I think the headline merely reveals a lot about the way the medical establishment views women, which in turn is indicative of the way society in general views women. But that really isn’t anything specifically to do with trans issues.  The editorial is right to be challenged but I see this as the wrong thread to do it in.


----------



## Edie (Sep 26, 2021)

My view is that no one working a high impact journal like the Lancet would be unaware of the wider sociopolitical context of that phrase used as a headline.


----------



## smokedout (Sep 26, 2021)

Edie said:


> My view is that no one working a high impact journal like the Lancet would be unaware of the wider sociopolitical context of that phrase used as a headline.



Why would they do this though?  I have never once heard of any calls for trans men to be labelled bodies with vaginas in healthcare settings.  Are you really suggesting The Lancet, which has been relatively neutral on the trans/GC conflict, deliberately chose that phrase, took it out of context and put it on the front cover as a provocation in the name of trans inclusion?


----------



## Athos (Sep 26, 2021)

Edie said:


> My view is that no one working a high impact journal like the Lancet would be unaware of the wider sociopolitical context of that phrase used as a headline.


This is supported by the fact that, on Twitter, the author has 'liked' a number of tweets commending her for using trans inclusive language in the article.

I suspect she chose "bodies with vaginas" over the more natural/obvious "woman" to be inclusive. Which sentiment I support; just think the wording she used was crass. And the decision about the cover even more so.


----------



## Athos (Sep 26, 2021)

smokedout said:


> Why would they do this though?  I have never once heard of any calls for trans men to be labelled bodies with vaginas in healthcare settings.  Are you really suggesting The Lancet, which has been relatively neutral on the trans/GC conflict, deliberately chose that phrase, took it out of context and put it on the front cover as a provocation in the name of trans inclusion?


Of course it's not some deliberate provocation.  It's more likely that they're (a) being trans inclusive whilst (b) showing the medical community's ingrained unconscious misogyny.  But, (a) did not cause (b), and (b) need not be an inevitable consequence of (a).  Whilst there's an obvious nexus between the two, nobody can reasonably blame trans people for the language/editorial decisions, and, to my knowledge, nobody in this thread has.


----------



## Sue (Sep 26, 2021)

Can we all at least agree that the cover headline isn't very good, whatever the rationale behind the wording was?


----------



## hitmouse (Sep 26, 2021)

Has anyone actually read the bloody thing beyond the headline, or are we getting on for five pages of arguing based on a headline alone? I gather SpookyFrank has, not sure if anyone else has actually read the whole thing though? (I haven't, fwiw.)


----------



## SpookyFrank (Sep 26, 2021)

hitmouse said:


> Has anyone actually read the bloody thing beyond the headline, or are we getting on for five pages of arguing based on a headline alone? I gather SpookyFrank has, not sure if anyone else has actually read the whole thing though? (I haven't, fwiw.)



It's not even very long.


----------



## Athos (Sep 26, 2021)

hitmouse said:


> Has anyone actually read the bloody thing beyond the headline, or are we getting on for five pages of arguing based on a headline alone? I gather SpookyFrank has, not sure if anyone else has actually read the whole thing though? (I haven't, fwiw.)


I have. It's not a bad piece, except for that one criticism about the language.


----------



## spanglechick (Sep 26, 2021)

Edie said:


> You mean people on here have called transwomen ‘bodies or people with penises’? Or am I misunderstanding?



Yes.  Trans-exclusionary posters on urban have used the phrases “penis people” and “penis havers” when referring to trans women.  



Magnus McGinty said:


> Seems bizarre to me that some are arguing for calling of trans women 'a body with a penis' given the usual line is 'trans women are women'.



Way to misrepresent a discussion and stir the pot.


----------



## ElizabethofYork (Sep 26, 2021)

hitmouse said:


> Has anyone actually read the bloody thing beyond the headline, or are we getting on for five pages of arguing based on a headline alone? I gather SpookyFrank has, not sure if anyone else has actually read the whole thing though? (I haven't, fwiw.)


I have.  It's an interesting article.


----------



## HoratioCuthbert (Sep 26, 2021)

0


----------



## Athos (Sep 26, 2021)

spanglechick said:


> Yes.  Trans-exclusionary posters on urban have used the phrases “penis people” and “penis havers” when referring to trans women.


Are you sure?

I recall CDL using 'penis people' to refer to men; she wasn't referring to trans women, and is clearly far from trans-exclusionary.  (Some also used it in their replies to her, but, again, not to refer to trans women.)

The only other instance I recall of 'penis people' being used is by Judith B, who appeared to use it to refer to men, and subsequently explicitly confirmed she wasn't referring to trans women.

I don't recall anyone here referring to trans women as 'penis-havers' either.

Have I missed something?


----------



## kabbes (Sep 26, 2021)

hitmouse said:


> Has anyone actually read the bloody thing beyond the headline, or are we getting on for five pages of arguing based on a headline alone? I gather SpookyFrank has, not sure if anyone else has actually read the whole thing though? (I haven't, fwiw.)


Nobody is objecting to the article. The writer of the article would not have been the person responsible for selecting the headline.


----------



## Magnus McGinty (Sep 26, 2021)

spanglechick said:


> Way to misrepresent a discussion and stir the pot.


If the boot is on the other foot eh?


----------



## Shechemite (Sep 26, 2021)

Must you?


----------



## Magnus McGinty (Sep 26, 2021)

The left's obsession with the control of language can lead to unintended places.


----------



## Red Cat (Sep 26, 2021)

The article is a review of an exhibition, it's not a health piece at all. Seems to me there's a theme of bodies as physical spaces and the physical space of the museum which is under threat of closure. A museum being a physical space in which objects are presented and displayed in such a way that makes you think about the cultural meaning of things, artefacts, ideas, categories etc.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Sep 26, 2021)

Magnus McGinty said:


> The left's obsession with the control of language can lead to unintended places.


----------



## Magnus McGinty (Sep 26, 2021)

SpookyFrank said:


>


You were happily arguing this earlier so not sure what the rolleyes is about.


----------



## co-op (Sep 26, 2021)

spanglechick said:


> Yes.  Trans-exclusionary posters on urban have used the phrases “penis people” and “penis havers” when referring to trans women.



Really? Who?


----------



## Shechemite (Sep 26, 2021)

2 or 3 posters. Several years ago. Not sure if they even post here any more


----------



## co-op (Sep 27, 2021)

If you say so, I never saw it and it's a weird thing to say, some tw have penises some don't.


----------



## Athos (Sep 27, 2021)

MadeInBedlam said:


> 2 or 3 posters. Several years ago. Not sure if they even post here any more


About trans women? Who?


----------



## keybored (Sep 27, 2021)

Knotted said:


> Google it.


Maybe you meant "benevolent sexism". "benign sexism" doesn't fit the context you used it in.


----------



## elbows (Sep 27, 2021)

I do not intend to end my self-imposed ban on arguing with people on this forum about these issues.

I just stopped by to quote this from an article.



> In response, Javid accused Starmer of a “total denial of scientific facts”, adding: “And he wants to run the NHS”.
> 
> He drew criticism from trans rights activists and allies, with many pointing out the NHS advice that trans and non-binary people with cervixes should make sure they get smear tests. Trans men registered with their GPs as female automatically get invited, while trans men registered with their GPs as male have to ask for smear tests.











						Javid accuses Starmer of denying ‘scientific fact’ in trans rights row
					

Labour leader says it is not right to say ‘only women have a cervix’ and calls for ‘respectful debate’ over issue




					www.theguardian.com


----------



## krtek a houby (Sep 27, 2021)

_Russ_ said:


> Many years ago a female friend of mine came out as a Lesbian, some time later I visited her and used her toilet...placed at a position and height that placed it at about eye level to someone standing facing the toilet (a position almost exclusively used by males of course) was a long lambasting ramble of disgust and hatred  towards men)
> 
> I am in no way saying that Lesbians are all man-haters, but be sure that bigoted people exist amongst all sexual preferences* even the 'cool' ones and they are often the most vocal when it comes to expressing how 'other' people should treat them*



You thought anymore about this post, _Russ_ 

Care to elaborate a bit? Ta.


----------



## Raheem (Sep 27, 2021)

krtek a houby said:


> You thought anymore about this post, _Russ_
> 
> Care to elaborate a bit? Ta.


Think I'd add "Fine if not".


----------



## krtek a houby (Sep 27, 2021)

Raheem said:


> Think I'd add "Fine if not".



Of course. Occasionally nice to know what people mean with ambiguous statements, but not essential.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Sep 27, 2021)

Magnus McGinty said:


> You were happily arguing this earlier so not sure what the rolleyes is about.



Gonna need to see your working out there old chum.


----------



## HoratioCuthbert (Sep 27, 2021)

Raheem said:


> Think I'd add "Fine if not".


I would leave the anecdote as it is, it is surreal when someone comes crashing onto urban completely unschooled in the political language of urban. If you ask me it doesn't happen often enough


----------



## Athos (Sep 27, 2021)

elbows said:


> I do not intend to end my self-imposed ban on arguing with people on this forum about these issues.
> 
> I just stopped by to quote this from an article.
> 
> ...


I don't think anyone would argue with you if your point is that Javid is wrong about this (as he is about so much else), to the point of being dangerous.


----------



## ginger_syn (Sep 27, 2021)

Edie said:


> Shut up then. You’ve nothing interesting to say.


Ditto


----------



## elbows (Sep 27, 2021)

Athos said:


> I don't think anyone would argue with you if your point is that Javid is wrong about this (as he is about so much else), to the point of being dangerous.



Yes that would be part of my point, and also that Starmers answer was about more than simply saying the right thing to the press and trying not to tread on a landmine in this debate.

Anyway I'm going from this thread now but I suppose I may as well provide the most obvious answer to your 'Who?' question of yesterday. The departed shit stirrer Judith B, an answer that should surprise nobody. Whether there were any others I cannot say, since in recent years I've only read a small fraction of posts on this subject.


----------



## smokedout (Sep 27, 2021)

elbows said:


> Yes that would be part of my point, and also that Starmers answer was about more than simply saying the right thing to the press and trying not to tread on a landmine in this debate.
> 
> Anyway I'm going from this thread now but I suppose I may as well provide the most obvious answer to your 'Who?' question of yesterday. The departed shit stirrer Judith B, an answer that should surprise nobody. Whether there were any others I cannot say, since in recent years I've only read a small fraction of posts on this subject.



This is urban, previously home to the would you fuck a tranny threads.  Still it's good to know everyone who laughed along to that is no longer transphobic but now just gender critical and has 'concerns'.


----------



## elbows (Sep 27, 2021)

smokedout said:


> This is urban, previously home to the would you fuck a tranny threads.  Still it's good to know everyone who laughed along to that is no longer transphobic but now just gender critical and has 'concerns'.



I dont remember entire threads dedicated to that question. I do remember an especially overt transphobe here asking someone that question when one of the large threads hit an especially low point, and frankly I think it even appalled some of the people who would normally be on 'that side' of the debate. In any case my previous remark was in regards to the 2 years since I stopped joining in with these 'discussions', not all the horror from the prior period.

Anyway I dont want to get dragged back into this because I banned myself because I could not trust myself not to get too personal in the face of such disgusting transphobia, the tolerance of it, and the pathetic moderation of it. But also because its always the same people driving the shit, and there is only so much of my time that I can bring myself to dedicate to the same old handful of bigots and shit stirrers. Those who wear their badge of ignorance with pride arent worth it, shame on them forever more. Although I do have sympathy for the couple of people whose problematic posts on the subject were partly sponsored by their own struggles with potential gender dysphoria that they dealt with in a manner that may have worked for them but left them ill-equipped to empathise with those who found a different solution.

Clearly I am getting dragged back in so please excuse me for failing to respond to any further messages sent my way on this.


----------



## Serge Forward (Sep 27, 2021)

smokedout said:


> This is urban, previously home to the would you fuck a tranny threads.


Was that actually a thing here??? Kinnell


----------



## Athos (Sep 27, 2021)

Serge Forward said:


> Was that actually a thing here??? Kinnell


Edited: I was wrong, see below.


----------



## Athos (Sep 27, 2021)

elbows said:


> Yes that would be part of my point, and also that Starmers answer was about more than simply saying the right thing to the press and trying not to tread on a landmine in this debate.
> 
> Anyway I'm going from this thread now but I suppose I may as well provide the most obvious answer to your 'Who?' question of yesterday. The departed shit stirrer Judith B, an answer that should surprise nobody. Whether there were any others I cannot say, since in recent years I've only read a small fraction of posts on this subject.



I'm no fan of JudithB, but I remember when challenged on the point she explicitly confirmed that she wasn't using "penis people" to refer to trans women (she was referring to men).


----------



## smokedout (Sep 27, 2021)

Straight blokes would you have sex with a post-op _transsexual_?​Which descends into a discussion about whether it would be morally acceptable to 'smash his face in' if you had sex with a trans women without being aware of her being trans.
Women -  would you have a relationship / shag a post op FTM _transsexual_?​and the somewhat gentler poll:
Would you consider a relationship with a _transsexual_?​No way José!  50.6%


Posted not really as an example as anything specific to urban but of how trans people were routinely discussed not that long ago.  Which is why some of us raise a sceptical eye when gender criticals of that generation claim they were never transphobic, they always loved trans people, but now they have lots and lots of concerns.


----------



## Athos (Sep 27, 2021)

smokedout said:


> Straight blokes would you have sex with a post-op _transsexual_?​Which descends into a discussion about whether it would be morally acceptable to 'smash his face in' if you had sex with a trans women without being aware of her being trans.
> Women -  would you have a relationship / shag a post op FTM _transsexual_?​and the somewhat gentler poll:
> Would you consider a relationship with a _transsexual_?​No way José!  50.6%
> 
> ...



In that case, I withdraw my comment and apologise to you for saying your claim was disingenuous. I didn't recall such threads, and disapprove of them.


----------



## Serge Forward (Sep 27, 2021)

smokedout said:


> Straight blokes would you have sex with a post-op _transsexual_?​Which descends into a discussion about whether it would be morally acceptable to 'smash his face in' if you had sex with a trans women without being aware of her being trans.
> Women -  would you have a relationship / shag a post op FTM _transsexual_?​and the somewhat gentler poll:
> Would you consider a relationship with a _transsexual_?​No way José!  50.6%
> 
> ...


Kinnell (again).


----------



## elbows (Sep 27, 2021)

Ah, those are from a completely different time period to what I was referring to. The shit I was on about was many years later, circa January 2018 when one overt transphobe asked the question in a very serious thread.

I certainly dont miss that older era when pure ignorance, dodgy language and uncomfortable jokes were a far larger part of the mix. But what came later, when people should have known better, was even more depressing in some ways.

edited to add - I think its noteworthy that looking at the date of those threads, 2005 and 2008, demonstrates that even when sloppily compared to the superficial world of television, u75 was well behind the times. Given that for example Paddington Green started in late 1998 and Nadia won Big Brother in 2004.


----------



## co-op (Sep 27, 2021)

smokedout said:


> This is urban, previously home to the would you fuck a tranny threads.  Still it's good to know everyone who laughed along to that is no longer transphobic but now just gender critical and has 'concerns'.


Lots of innuendo here - you got any actual names of people who did this?


ETA - I don't doubt the existence of the threads obviously - I mean people who claim to be gender critical being behind them, linked to them etc? 

The suggestion that gender critical people are all transphobes is a bit like the one a page upthread about unnamed posters who 'disappeared a few years ago' who apparently made illogical and incoherent statements that also were "transphobic".

It's a stupid tactic - the "bigotry" one - outside silly little bubbles like U75 it just ain't going to wash.


----------



## Magnus McGinty (Sep 27, 2021)

Well a lot of the ‘names’ seemingly don’t post anymore, and the ones that do don’t appear to post on this thread or not from a GC position. 
Presumably then folk are guilty of something for having been a member when those threads existed.


----------



## smokedout (Sep 27, 2021)

elbows said:


> Ah, those are from a completely different time period to what I was referring to. The shit I was on about was many years later, circa January 2018 when one overt transphobe asked the question in a very serious thread.
> 
> I certainly dont miss that older era when pure ignorance, dodgy language and uncomfortable jokes were a far larger part of the mix. But what came later, when people should have known better, was even more depressing in some ways.
> 
> edited to add - I think its noteworthy that looking at the date of those threads, 2005 and 2008, demonstrates that even when sloppily compared to the superficial world of television, u75 was well behind the times. Given that for example Paddington Green started in late 1998 and Nadia won Big Brother in 2004.



I'm not sure urban was any better or any worse than anywhere else to be honest, probably marginally better if anything. The first time I actually met other trans people in person was in 2005.  They were a couple who were the archetypal mumsnet approved old school transsexuals, who had fully medically transitioned, although despite claims to the contrary about this group they very much considered themselves women and used women's spaces - with some caution it should probably be said.  Their advice was unless you absolutely cannot live another day as a man and are suicidal do not transition, do not come out, do not tell anyone, live a secret life to manage dysphoria if you must, go to the clubs if you want some social space (by which they meant the chaser clubs which was about the only spaces trans people could go out safely in public although it meant spending the whole night fighting off sexual assault by the often predatory men who went there to pick up trans women).  The reason for this advice was that they had lost everything through transition, their jobs, families, friends, and largely lived as social pariahs.  It had taken them five years just to get known and liked locally enough to the point they could have a drink in their local pub without relentless harassment - and they would never take a trans guest there because it was felt that 3 trans people in one space would be unnecessarily provocative.

And trans people of that generation internalised this, it was normal, it was just what it meant to be trans and the primary concern of most trans people was getting through the day without being abused or beaten up.  I don't remember anyone ever saying shall we fucking do something about this, whilst there were some tiny groups like Press For Change trying to influence legislation the trans people I met were steadfastly apolitical - dont draw attention to us, it's too dangerous was a common sentiment.  Most trans people had been gender non-conforming in some way as kids, and experienced a life time of being told they were freaks and deviants and learnt to either repress it, until they couldn't anymore, or hide themselves away if they did transition.  So I guess in some ways a lot of us believed that we were at fault, that to be trans was a bad thing somehow and so it had to be kept in the shadows.  We deserved it.

But, what was also happening at this time was a younger generation of trans people were finding each other through the internet and forming communities and they weren't ashamed of who they were or prepared to live closeted or invisible lives.  And when they emerged, as the dreaded TRAs, they were furious and deservedly so.  They may not have got everything right, but their cause was just and their passion changed things for the better,  changed the world in fact - although the inevitable reaction to that from the older generations, and the attempts to roll back rights long ago won, suggests that the fears of those who said don't draw attention to us were not unfounded.

So whilst those threads might seem shocking when viewed today I doubt they would suprise anyone who is trans who lived through that period.  We remember.  And we don't want to go back there.


----------



## elbows (Sep 27, 2021)

Yes I suppose its quite likely that any claim I might make that this place was worse than average was probably down to having doomed expectations that it might be significantly better than average. 

I suppose I might also concede that terrible jokes and incredibly clumsy stumbling around a subject is part of what happens when changing attitudes are underway and people are trying to explore the changing landscape and come to terms with some of their attitudes no longer being the acceptable norm.

I was certainly more tolerant of ignorance back then than I have been in more recent years. But that may be partly down to me becoming more aware of and disgusted by a generation gap opening up between my generation and those younger, one where I feel like I have more in common with those younger than me than those my own age.


----------



## elbows (Sep 27, 2021)

Now hopefully I will crawl off in peace by ending with more quotes on the same subject as started me posting on this thread last night.



> Appearing on BBC Two's Politics Live on Monday, Ms Thornberry said she agreed with her leader's stance on the issue.
> 
> "It is factually inaccurate [as] there are men who have cervixes," she said. "There are men who are trans. And they are men. It is just factually wrong [to say otherwise]."
> 
> ...











						Labour conference: Emily Thornberry backs Sir Keir Starmer over trans row
					

The shadow trade secretary says it is “factually inaccurate” to say only women have a cervix.



					www.bbc.co.uk


----------



## ViolentPanda (Sep 27, 2021)

kabbes said:


> Nobody is objecting to the article. The writer of the article would not have been the person responsible for selecting the headline.


Headlines for feature articles/front-pagers are usually decided by the editor of the publication.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Sep 27, 2021)

Magnus McGinty said:


> The left's obsession with the control of language can lead to unintended places.



It's hardly only a "left" obsession. The right are just as guilty.


----------



## Magnus McGinty (Sep 27, 2021)

ViolentPanda said:


> It's hardly only a "left" obsession. The right are just as guilty.


I don’t frequent “right” discussion forums though. But point accepted.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Sep 27, 2021)

smokedout said:


> Straight blokes would you have sex with a post-op _transsexual_?​Which descends into a discussion about whether it would be morally acceptable to 'smash his face in' if you had sex with a trans women without being aware of her being trans.
> Women -  would you have a relationship / shag a post op FTM _transsexual_?​and the somewhat gentler poll:
> Would you consider a relationship with a _transsexual_?​No way José!  50.6%
> 
> ...



"Not that long ago" is somewhat disingenuous, given the newest thread above is 13 yrs old.


----------



## 19force8 (Sep 27, 2021)

ViolentPanda said:


> "Not that long ago" is somewhat disingenuous, given the newest thread above is 13 yrs old.


The 70s are "not that long ago"


----------



## Magnus McGinty (Sep 27, 2021)

19force8 said:


> The 70s are "not that long ago"


The first thread there was 16 years ago. A couple of posters expressed some unsavoury views and they were challenged on them by other posters. Which is what has happened here since before the forums even existed and it was a basic message board.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Sep 27, 2021)

19force8 said:


> The 70s are "not that long ago"



They are for those of us born in the '60s, maaan.


----------



## smokedout (Sep 27, 2021)

Magnus McGinty said:


> The first thread there was 16 years ago. A couple of posters expressed some unsavoury views and they were challenged on them by other posters. Which is what has happened here since before the forums even existed and it was a basic message board.



You don't think the fact those threads existed and not one person challenged them is a problem then?  Noted.

Personally I think it's revealing that not one of the gender critical people who were members at the time and who now care so passionately about people being dehumanised and objectifed raised a peep in protest at those threads.


----------



## Magnus McGinty (Sep 27, 2021)

smokedout said:


> You don't think the fact those threads existed and not one person challenged them is a problem then?  Noted.
> 
> Personally I think it's revealing that not one of the gender critical people who were members at the time and who now care so passionately about people being dehumanised and objectifed raised a peep in protest at those threads.


I’m out of this, putting this thread on ignore. Love and respect to you, smokedout.


----------



## Athos (Sep 27, 2021)

smokedout said:


> You don't think the fact those threads existed and not one person challenged them is a problem then?  Noted.


Those threads reflect poorly on this place, notwithstanding the fact that much has changed since then.



smokedout said:


> Personally I think it's revealing that not one of the gender critical people who were members at the time and who now care so passionately about people being dehumanised and objectifed raised a peep in protest at those threads.


Revealing how?  You don't know that any of them saw those threads, do you?  Can you see any gender critical posters who've objected to dehumanising/objectifying language who've voted or posted on them?  I can't.  But, ironically, I can see a number of those who now appear to be trans-inclusive.  Some merely engaging with the poor taste poll/thread, but others even going so far as to actively indicate that they wouldn't sleep with a trans person/weren't sure!


----------



## 19force8 (Sep 28, 2021)

_Russ_ said:


> Many years ago a female friend of mine came out as a Lesbian, some time later I visited her and used her toilet...placed at a position and height that placed it at about eye level to someone standing facing the toilet (a position almost exclusively used by males of course) was a long lambasting ramble of disgust and hatred  towards men)


I read this three times trying to work out how anyone could use a toilet placed at eye level


----------



## bimble (Sep 28, 2021)

the editor of the Lancet has done a Statement. 


			A statement from Richard Horton, Editor-in-Chief, The Lancet


----------



## SpookyFrank (Sep 28, 2021)

bimble said:


> the editor of the Lancet has done a Statement.
> 
> 
> A statement from Richard Horton, Editor-in-Chief, The Lancet



A man apologising for a woman's choice of words. Feminism is saved.


----------



## bimble (Sep 28, 2021)

It’s more of a sorry if you feel that way than sorry we made a mistake.


----------



## Shechemite (Sep 28, 2021)

bimble said:


> It’s more of a sorry if you feel that way than sorry we made a mistake.



Fucking doctors


----------



## kabbes (Sep 28, 2021)

SpookyFrank said:


> A man apologising for a woman's choice of words. Feminism is saved.


A man not apologising for his own choice of headline, would be the more accurate assessment.


----------



## Cid (Sep 28, 2021)

The woman who wrote the piece is the senior editor for the Lancet's Child and Adolescent health journal. We have no idea what input she had wrt the headline... May well have been none, may not have been. Both of the managing editors at the main journal are women. All of the executive editors are women. 3/5 of the senior executive editors are women. The deputy editor is a woman (and has 'contributed to the roundtable Session D: GENDER ISSUES IN SCIENCE PUBLICATIONS <not my caps> How can editorial policies and writing on gender issues in science be improved to make the assessment and selection of research results for publication sensitive to gender and sex issues?' ). Top spot goes to man of course, because we've not come that far apparently. But people are making one fuck of a lot of assumptions about editorial decisions here.


----------



## Athos (Sep 28, 2021)

I don't think the statement is as bad as people here (and moreso on Twitter) are saying. It did acknowledge the dehumanising language, and did contain an apology, whilst stressing the need for inclusivity.  But the proof will be in the pudding of how they address these issues in the future.


----------



## teuchter (Sep 28, 2021)

What should the Lancet statement/apology have said, then?


----------



## kabbes (Sep 28, 2021)

teuchter said:


> What should the Lancet statement/apology have said, then?


How about just, “in the future, when we pull a single quote from an article to use it out of context as a headline, we’ll try to pay more attention to what that might be saying as a stand-alone statement.”


----------



## Cid (Sep 28, 2021)

One of the problems here is that the idea of 'bodies' is something that has been used in critical theory academic literature for ages. I am not remotely qualified to know whether this would be an appropriate use in that context... But this is the problem, and this is what people mean when they talk about 'the outrage'. What would normally be a fairly narrow academic discussion is distorted and amplified through the popular press or twitter, i.e people no more qualified than me, in an attempt to whip up moral panics; all chance for correctives are lost, all hope for productive debate subsumed. You see it as much with the rabid frothing of Fox news etc over critical race theory as over gender politics (not that outrage is just levelled at the right). The academic discussion _will_ happen, but it will just be picking over the wreckage caused by the shitstorm.


----------



## Cid (Sep 28, 2021)

Anyway, too much from me. Breaking my rules. Should probably use ignore thread function.


----------



## teuchter (Sep 28, 2021)

kabbes said:


> How about just, “in the future, when we pull a single quote from an article to use it out of context as a headline, we’ll try to pay more attention to what that might be saying as a stand-alone statement.”



Well, what it "says" as a stand-alone statement is down to how any reader interprets it.

I think it's fine for the Lancet to disagree with the interpretation that some have taken from it, perhaps even take the view that it's an unreasonable interpretation to take from it, whilst still being sorry if it has unintentionally caused offense.


----------



## Red Cat (Sep 28, 2021)

Cid said:


> One of the problems here is that the idea of 'bodies' is something that has been used in critical theory academic literature for ages. I am not remotely qualified to know whether this would be an appropriate use in that context... But this is the problem, and this is what people mean when they talk about 'the outrage'. What would normally be a fairly narrow academic discussion is distorted and amplified through the popular press or twitter, i.e people no more qualified than me, in an attempt to whip up moral panics; all chance for correctives are lost, all hope for productive debate subsumed. You see it as much with the rabid frothing of Fox news etc over critical race theory as over gender politics (not that outrage is just levelled at the right). The academic discussion _will_ happen, but it will just be picking over the wreckage caused by the shitstorm.



I thought that and wrote something similar a couple of days ago. To which there was no response almost like I hadn't spoken. No bodies here.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Sep 28, 2021)

teuchter said:


> What should the Lancet statement/apology have said, then?



'We support the author of the article and we don't change our editorial policies in response to barracking from people who don't actually read anything we print.'

I'm sure those posters who disapprove of language being controlled could only agree with such a sentiment.


----------



## Cid (Sep 28, 2021)

Red Cat said:


> I thought that and wrote something similar a couple of days ago. To which there was no response almost like I hadn't spoken. No bodies here.



Yes, may have kind of missed that... 

I meant in the context of third wave feminism and intersectionality; the development of ideas of gender as distinct from sex and the deconstruction of social constructs of gender (scuse clumsy formulation). Judith Butler with _bodies that matter_... Also ideas you find in critical race theory; the notion of the bodily experience of racism and oppression, e.g Dorothy Roberts' _killing the black body_. I'm miles out of my comfort zone here, but my point was that discussion of body as something distinct has been part of feminist and intersectional literature for 30 odd years. It's possible that that has in some ways lead to use of the word in a too casual sense, that's something that may be worthy of discussion. But I'm pretty sure The Mail, Spectator, Telegraph and Piers fucking Morgan were not thinking about that.

I don't know what the intent of the author was... But yeah you're absolutely right that it's an extremely _physical_ piece. Both in the sense that it explores an exhibition, and in that it confronts people like me (cis men) with an embodied reality that we've spent millennia pushing away. Summed up in the final paragraph;



> The lockdown confinement has highlighted the importance of physical places like museums. This exhibition is particularly special in its focus on gendered histories, the medical visibility of women's bodies, and the cultural movement against menstrual shame and period poverty.



Definitely putting thread on ignore now. Yep. Also definitely didn't do it before and notice 'ignored thread' on the forums page


----------



## Spanner (Sep 29, 2021)

smokedout said:


> Straight blokes would you have sex with a post-op _transsexual_?​Which descends into a discussion about whether it would be morally acceptable to 'smash his face in' if you had sex with a trans women without being aware of her being trans.
> Women -  would you have a relationship / shag a post op FTM _transsexual_?​and the somewhat gentler poll:
> Would you consider a relationship with a _transsexual_?​No way José!  50.6%
> 
> ...



Oh dear, not a good look 👀


----------



## _Russ_ (Sep 29, 2021)

Santino said:


> Bizarre post.


Strange reaction


----------



## co-op (Sep 29, 2021)

smokedout said:


> Personally I think it's revealing that not one of the gender critical people who were members at the time and who now care so passionately about people being dehumanised and objectifed raised a peep in protest at those threads.


Personally I don't. 

It's ridiculous to accuse just one group of somehow being responsible for views in threads which they didn't even post in and may not have known existed, or may not have even been members of the forums when these threads were active. It's just stupid, but obviously you are obsessed with tying this bogus claim of "transphobia" on anyone who doesn't agree with your gender politics and that's the only way in which your allegation makes sense. Self-serving crap.


----------



## SpineyNorman (Sep 29, 2021)

co-op said:


> Personally I don't.
> 
> It's ridiculous to accuse just one group of somehow being responsible for views in threads which they didn't even post in and may not have known existed, or may not have even been members of the forums when these threads were active. It's just stupid, but obviously you are obsessed with tying this bogus claim of "transphobia" on anyone who doesn't agree with your gender politics and that's the only way in which your allegation makes sense. Self-serving crap.


Yet it's perfectly fine to post tweets of random nutters as evidence of what the 'trans lobby' thinks. So fucking transparent. 

I think most people on this thread whatever their views are posting in good faith. You, on the other hand, are an obsessive cranky weirdo with an agenda.


----------



## Sweet FA (Sep 29, 2021)

Brilliant - Spanner & co-op are here to sort everything out.

eta & Russ!


----------



## krtek a houby (Sep 29, 2021)

co-op said:


> Personally I don't.
> 
> It's ridiculous to accuse just one group of somehow being responsible for views in threads which they didn't even post in and may not have known existed, or may not have even been members of the forums when these threads were active. It's just stupid, but obviously you are obsessed with tying this bogus claim of "transphobia" on anyone who doesn't agree with your gender politics and that's the only way in which your allegation makes sense. Self-serving crap.


Nope


----------



## co-op (Sep 30, 2021)

SpineyNorman said:


> Yet it's perfectly fine to post tweets of random nutters as evidence of what the 'trans lobby' thinks. So fucking transparent.
> 
> I think most people on this thread whatever their views are posting in good faith. You, on the other hand, are an obsessive cranky weirdo with an agenda.



What I've posted on this thread is a woman, a trade unionist getting harassed by her employer for saying the words I posted up. And asking "is she a transphobe?" for saying the words she said. You don't engage with that, instead you agree that the fact that I didn't condemn posts from 16 years ago on threads I didn't even read is evidence of my transphobia and accuse me of "posting tweets of random nutters"?

And then accuse me of not arguing in good faith   . You really are a fucking idiot.


Honestly you lot really need to get out more. You are making clowns of yourselves on this.


----------



## krtek a houby (Sep 30, 2021)

"you lot"


----------



## co-op (Sep 30, 2021)

krtek a houby said:


> "you lot"



 To some extent this is a case of if the cap fits then wear it.

But I was really thinking of anyone who thinks that GC posters on here are "transphobes" for not posting pro-trans messages on anti-trans threads from 16 years ago. Seems kinda clown-like to me.

But I guess it's safer than being accused of "transphobia" yourself, so maybe it's cowardice rather than clownitude? But the allegation of "transphobia" won't be easily pacified, you will have to keep making bigger offerings & in the end the most important offering is to publicly be-clown yourself. Case in point, David Lammy just shared with the world that he thinks transwomen have a cervix


----------



## belboid (Sep 30, 2021)

co-op said:


> David Lammy just shared with the world that he thinks transwomen have a cervix


Did he? Every report I’ve seen says he said it’s ‘not right’ to say ‘only women have a cervix.’  Somewhat different to your claim, tho we should just come to accept that from you.  

I think a transphobe is someone who works against trans people having equal rights with cis people.  That includes in healthcare and access to facilities and services.   Far more recently than 16 years ago it was argued on here that such campaigns were unacceptable demands for special treatment. 

Meanwhile, violence against trans people has quadrupled over five years. Unemployment is around fifty percent. One in four trans people has attempted suicide.

The Council of Europe has just released a major report on LGBT+ rights, the Uk does not come out well:

It describes “a marked increase” in anti-LGBT+ hate speech and hate crime and condemns “with particular force the extensive and often virulent attacks” on LGBT+ rights in the UK, which is named alongside Hungary, Poland, Turkey and the Russian Federation.

What lovely company!

The supposed opposition between women’s and trans rights is nothing but a smokescreen that the right want to use to attack both groups.


----------



## co-op (Sep 30, 2021)

belboid said:


> Did he? Every report I’ve seen says he said it’s ‘not right’ to say ‘only women have a cervix.’  Somewhat different to your claim, tho we should just come to accept that from you.


There are a lot of factual inaccuracies in your post but just to get this one out of the way, why not listen to what he actually said?



I know the main point of your post is to prove to the rest of your chums that you are hyper-vigilant in the fight against "transphobia" rather to actually deal with reality, but it's odd that you should use this example as a way of proving _my_ 'repeating falsehoods', when you could have so easily checked this one?

Does it not embarrass you when you are caught out like this? Or is the auto-enclowning, worth it to avoid the allegation of "transphobia"?


----------



## krtek a houby (Sep 30, 2021)

co-op said:


> To some extent this is a case of if the cap fits then wear it.
> 
> But I was really thinking of anyone who thinks that GC posters on here are "transphobes" for not posting pro-trans messages on anti-trans threads from 16 years ago. Seems kinda clown-like to me.
> 
> But I guess it's safer than being accused of "transphobia" yourself, so maybe it's cowardice rather than clownitude? But the allegation of "transphobia" won't be easily pacified, you will have to keep making bigger offerings & in the end the most important offering is to publicly be-clown yourself. Case in point, David Lammy just shared with the world that he thinks transwomen have a cervix



Some people think you have a brain


----------



## co-op (Sep 30, 2021)

krtek a houby said:


> Some people think you have a brain





Is this really the best you can do?

Do you think tw grow a cervix, or were they born with one?


----------



## ElizabethofYork (Sep 30, 2021)

co-op said:


> Is this really the best you can do?
> 
> Do you think tw grow a cervix, or were they born with one?


What?


----------



## belboid (Sep 30, 2021)

co-op said:


> There are a lot of factual inaccuracies in your post but just to get this one out of the way, why not listen to what he actually said?
> 
> 
> 
> ...



There were no factual inaccuracies, all the reports I saw - including in the right wing press who support your transphobia - report it as I said.  Probably because it is blatantly obvious what he meant (ie trans men).  A pretty pathetic attempt by you.  Which is a mild improvement on your usual standard. 

You enjoy trying to whip up antipathy towards trans people and I don’t see why you should be treated differently to any misogynist, racist or homophobe.


----------



## krtek a houby (Sep 30, 2021)

co-op said:


> Is this really the best you can do?
> 
> Do you think tw grow a cervix, or were they born with one?



Doesn't matter what this self thinks. What matters is who and what people are. What they are comfortable identifying with.

It may anger and terrify some out there who can't fathom it. Won't fathom it. But frankly, they are the ones with issues.


----------



## co-op (Sep 30, 2021)

belboid said:


> There were no factual inaccuracies, all the reports I saw - including in the right wing press who support your transphobia - report it as I said.  Probably because it is blatantly obvious what he meant (ie trans men).



Jesus, you are off down the rabbit hole aren't you? It's crystal clear he's talking about transwomen - he suggests that it might be a "procedure" or due to "hormones" - how on earth could this possibly be how a transman has a cervix? They are born with one.

This is a surreal explanation even by the standards of this topic.

But just shout "transphobia!" and everything will be ok, I'm sure.


----------



## co-op (Sep 30, 2021)

krtek a houby said:


> Doesn't matter what this self thinks. What matters is who and what people are. What they are comfortable identifying with.



All of these thing matter I agree. One reason that simply saying this doesn't solve anything is that there is a rupture between "what people are" and "what they are comfortable identifying with".


----------



## ElizabethofYork (Sep 30, 2021)

co-op said:


> Jesus, you are off down the rabbit hole aren't you? It's crystal clear he's talking about transwomen - he suggests that it might be a "procedure" or due to "hormones" - how on earth could this possibly be how a transman has a cervix? They are born with one.
> 
> This is a surreal explanation even by the standards of this topic.
> 
> But just shout "transphobia!" and everything will be ok, I'm sure.


Don't be ridiculous.  It's obvious that he meant transmen.


----------



## co-op (Sep 30, 2021)

ElizabethofYork said:


> What?



David Lammy appears to think that (some? all?) transwomen have a cervix. This is where chanting "transwomen are women" for long enough will get you. Pretty confused. But of course saying any of this is "transphobic".


----------



## hitmouse (Sep 30, 2021)

I can't believe I'm in the position of having to defend David Lammy, but I find it easier to sympathise with someone who isn't completely sure what he's on about and ends up saying something a bit daft as a result of being tripped up while being badgered about a subject he doesn't know that much about than I do with the obsessive weirdos doing the badgering. Or do you think Nick Ferrari was so keen to bring the subject up because of his long-standing commitment to radical feminism?


----------



## co-op (Sep 30, 2021)

ElizabethofYork said:


> Don't be ridiculous.  It's obvious that he meant transmen.



OK you think so too, doesn't sound like that to me. And not what he actually says.
Why do you think he uses the word "procedure" in there? Does he think transmen have operations to put a cervix in? How does that word, or the word "hormones" in there fit with this being about transmen?


----------



## belboid (Sep 30, 2021)

co-op said:


> Jesus, you are off down the rabbit hole aren't you? It's crystal clear he's talking about transwomen - he suggests that it might be a "procedure" or due to "hormones" - how on earth could this possibly be how a transman has a cervix? They are born with one.
> 
> This is a surreal explanation even by the standards of this topic.
> 
> But just shout "transphobia!" and everything will be ok, I'm sure.


He talks about how ‘trans women’ may still have cervixes but not ovaries, following ‘procedures and all the rest of it’.  It’s ducking obvious to anyone listening he meant trans men unless you were being deliberately stupid.  Even the Express recognised that.   You’re to the right of the Express, well done you!


----------



## Athos (Sep 30, 2021)

ElizabethofYork said:


> Don't be ridiculous.  It's obvious that he meant transmen.


I don't think so. Because he said they couldn't have ovaries but could have a cervix following procedures and hormone treatment.  I think it's just more a case that Lammy is a useless prick.  Don't think it has anything more to significant to add to discussions on trans issues than that, though.


----------



## Kevbad the Bad (Sep 30, 2021)

hitmouse said:


> I can't believe I'm in the position of having to defend David Lammy, but I find it easier to sympathise with someone who isn't completely sure what he's on about and ends up saying something a bit daft as a result of being tripped up while being badgered about a subject he doesn't know that much about than I do with the obsessive weirdos doing the badgering. Or do you think Nick Ferrari was so keen to bring the subject up because of his long-standing commitment to radical feminism?


It would be better if all these politicians making fools of themselves kept quiet then, and admitted they don't know that much about the subject, rather than making dogmatic statements about which it turns out they are uncertain.


----------



## co-op (Sep 30, 2021)

hitmouse said:


> I can't believe I'm in the position of having to defend David Lammy, but I find it easier to sympathise with someone who isn't completely sure what he's on about and ends up saying something a bit daft as a result of being tripped up while being badgered about a subject he doesn't know that much about than I do with the obsessive weirdos doing the badgering. Or do you think Nick Ferrari was so keen to bring the subject up because of his long-standing commitment to radical feminism?



Obviously Nick Ferrari is a right wing  shock-jock who's smart enough to see when his political enemies are all over the shop on an issue and he will exploit that.


----------



## belboid (Sep 30, 2021)

Anyway, all co-ops bullshit is just a sad attempt to force the issue onto trivialities and to ignore the material reality of the level of bias against trans people.   Shameful.


----------



## co-op (Sep 30, 2021)

belboid said:


> He talks about how ‘trans women’ may still have cervixes but not ovaries, following ‘procedures and all the rest of it’.  It’s ducking obvious to anyone listening he meant trans men unless you were being deliberately stupid.  Even the Express recognised that.   You’re to the right of the Express, well done you!



How does that fit with his saying "they can't have ovaries"? You're absolutely talking gibberish here.


----------



## belboid (Sep 30, 2021)

co-op said:


> How does that fit with his saying "they can't have ovaries"? You're absolutely talking gibberish here.


Fuck off


----------



## Raheem (Sep 30, 2021)

co-op said:


> How does that fit with his saying "they can't have ovaries"? You're absolutely talking gibberish here.


Why are you so excited about this?


----------



## co-op (Sep 30, 2021)

belboid said:


> Fuck off



Seriously you'd have done better to say Lammy's a confused idiot. By choosing to go with the idea that he's making sense you just back yourself into a corner and this ^^ is always going to be the only way out.


----------



## hitmouse (Sep 30, 2021)

Kevbad the Bad said:


> It would be better if all these politicians making fools of themselves kept quiet then, and admitted they don't know that much about the subject, rather than making dogmatic statements about which it turns out they are uncertain.


I mean:








						BBC stoking row over trans rights, Labour frontbencher David Lammy says
					

Shadow justice secretary says corporation is deliberately asking about issues not of interest on the doorstep




					www.independent.co.uk
				






> A Labour frontbencher has criticised the BBC for focusing on "identity issues" and effectively stoking a row over trans rights in the party.
> 
> In an interview on Wednesday morning shadow justice secretary David Lammy said Today programme presenter Nick Robinson was "deliberately asking me about an issue that you know does not come up on the doorstep."
> 
> ...


Obviously, I can't say I'm that excited about Keir Starmer's substantive policies or whatever, but it does seem to me like Lammy wants to be talking about the fuel crisis instead, but the Nick Robinsons and Ferraris of this world keep on insisting he has to talk about trans people in the hopes that he'll produce an exciting mis-step that the likes of co-op can then bang on endlessly about? Quite how anyone benefits from this is not entirely clear.


----------



## Kevbad the Bad (Sep 30, 2021)

hitmouse said:


> I mean:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


So like I said, he shouldn't get involved when he's uncertain of his ground.


----------



## hitmouse (Sep 30, 2021)

co-op said:


> Obviously Nick Ferrari is a right wing  shock-jock who's smart enough to see when his political enemies are all over the shop on an issue and he will exploit that.


What do you hope to achieve by amplifying Nick Ferrari's messaging here? What's the end goal that you're hoping to move towards by highlighting the fact that a right-wing shock-jock got a confused interviewee to say something confused?


----------



## belboid (Sep 30, 2021)

co-op said:


> Seriously you'd have done better to say Lammy's a confused idiot. By choosing to go with the idea that he's making sense you just back yourself into a corner and this ^^ is always going to be the only way out.


Seriously, fuck off. 

The ftm transition process involves _always_ removing the ovaries but not necessarily the cervix.  Lammy clearly knows more than you. 

And, just to repeat, fuck off.


----------



## Athos (Sep 30, 2021)

belboid said:


> The ftm transition process involves _always_ removing the ovaries but not necessarily the cervix.


No it doesn't. Many people transition socially without any surgery.


----------



## co-op (Sep 30, 2021)

Raheem said:


> Why are you so excited about this?



Possibly you meant to address this to Belboid?


----------



## hitmouse (Sep 30, 2021)

co-op said:


> Possibly you meant to address this to Belboid?


I can't speak for Raheem, but I think they may have intended to address it to the person who first decided to bring it up here, and paired it with three smilies to show how excited they were about it?


----------



## belboid (Sep 30, 2021)

I wonder why coop is so keen to avoid talking about the material reality of trans peoples lives? They’re obviously not important to him.


----------



## Knotted (Sep 30, 2021)

co-op if you want to say that trans rights are a good way for the left to alienate the working class and an opening for culture warriors on the right, can you please just say so and stop with the hiding behind gender critical feminism.

(Of course we have had all these arguments before wrt gay rights.)


----------



## iona (Sep 30, 2021)

belboid said:


> The ftm transition process involves _always_ removing the ovaries but not necessarily the cervix. Lammy clearly knows more than you.





Athos said:


> No it doesn't. Many people transition socially without any surgery.


Not sure what options the UK team offer (now that we finally have a UK team with an NHS contract again  ) but generally speaking, oophorectomy (removal of the ovaries) isn't necessarily required even for those transmasculine people who do have metoidioplasty or phalloplasty (the two "lower surgery" options).

E2a also, hysterectomy, with or without salpingo-oophorectomy, is no longer recommended as standard for anyone on testosterone. Current advice is transabdominal ultrasound every two years to monitor for endometrial hypoplasia.


----------



## Athos (Sep 30, 2021)

iona said:


> Not sure what options the UK team offer (now that we finally have a UK team with an NHS contract again  ) but generally speaking, oophorectomy (removal of the ovaries) isn't necessarily required even for those transmasculine people who do have metoidioplasty or phalloplasty (the two "lower surgery" options).
> 
> E2a also, hysterectomy, with or without salpingo-oophorectomy, is no longer recommended as standard for anyone on testosterone. Current advice is transabdominal ultrasound every two years to monitor for endometrial hypoplasia.


Thanks.

I think it's obvious that Belboid and Lammy were both wrong.

Though I do wonder what the purpose of coop introducing Lammy was.


----------



## iona (Sep 30, 2021)

Athos said:


> Thanks.
> 
> I think it's obvious that Belboid and Lammy were both wrong.
> 
> Though I do wonder what the purpose of coop introducing Lammy was.


: shrug :

I've made my point, not getting involved with any of this shit beyond that


----------



## Athos (Sep 30, 2021)

iona said:


> : shrug :
> 
> I've made my point, not getting involved with any of this shit beyond that


Can't say as I blame you!


----------



## belboid (Sep 30, 2021)

iona said:


> Not sure what options the UK team offer (now that we finally have a UK team with an NHS contract again  ) but generally speaking, oophorectomy (removal of the ovaries) isn't necessarily required even for those transmasculine people who do have metoidioplasty or phalloplasty (the two "lower surgery" options).
> 
> E2a also, hysterectomy, with or without salpingo-oophorectomy, is no longer recommended as standard for anyone on testosterone. Current advice is transabdominal ultrasound every two years to monitor for endometrial hypoplasia.


the NHS guidance I am aware of says that hysterectomy and bilateral salpingo-oöphorectomy will need to be carried out before any further procedure. It is a few years old tho


----------



## ginger_syn (Sep 30, 2021)

co-op said:


> David Lammy appears to think that (some? all?) transwomen have a cervix. This is where chanting "transwomen are women" for long enough will get you. Pretty confused. But of course saying any of this is "transphobic".


It is when a transphobe like you says it.


----------



## smokedout (Sep 30, 2021)

co-op said:


> To some extent this is a case of if the cap fits then wear it.
> 
> But I was really thinking of anyone who thinks that GC posters on here are "transphobes" for not posting pro-trans messages on anti-trans threads from 16 years ago. Seems kinda clown-like to me.
> 
> But I guess it's safer than being accused of "transphobia" yourself, so maybe it's cowardice rather than clownitude? But the allegation of "transphobia" won't be easily pacified, you will have to keep making bigger offerings & in the end the most important offering is to publicly be-clown yourself. Case in point, David Lammy just shared with the world that he thinks transwomen have a cervix



What's your point here?  You think that trans people want those who profess to be supporters to be completely ignorant of trans bodies and trans healthcare?  You think we want our bodies to be used as gotchas to catch out poorly briefed MPs?   To what end?  Some inexplicable quest for dominance that actually does us harm?

This is why you're a crank.


----------



## 8ball (Sep 30, 2021)

belboid said:


> I think a transphobe is someone who works against trans people having equal rights with cis people.



I think that’s kind of a high bar.


----------



## SpineyNorman (Sep 30, 2021)

co-op said:


> What I've posted on this thread is a woman, a trade unionist getting harassed by her employer for saying the words I posted up. And asking "is she a transphobe?" for saying the words she said. You don't engage with that, instead you agree that the fact that I didn't condemn posts from 16 years ago on threads I didn't even read is evidence of my transphobia and accuse me of "posting tweets of random nutters"?
> 
> And then accuse me of not arguing in good faith   . You really are a fucking idiot.
> 
> ...


I stand by it. I also called you an obsessive cranky weirdo, that part is important too.


----------



## bimble (Oct 5, 2021)

Just sticking this here, interesting interview with someone who is refusing to get into either trench. 
Can't justify buying it right now but would like to read their book. 








						Finn Mackay: the writer hoping to help end the gender wars
					

The sociologist and feminist campaigner believes it is possible to champion both women’s and trans rights. Can their new book help define some common ground?




					www.theguardian.com


----------



## smmudge (Oct 5, 2021)

Not sure it's such a novel concept that someone can support women's rights as well as trans rights (at the same time??!?!).

God the guardian are shit.


----------



## Reno (Oct 5, 2021)

smmudge said:


> Not sure it's such a novel concept that someone can support women's rights as well as trans rights (at the same time??!?!).
> 
> God the guardian are shit.


Why is the Guardian shit for reporting on someone who holds these views in a toxic culture war ? Did you bother to read the article ?


----------



## Athos (Oct 5, 2021)

Reno said:


> Why is the Guardian shit for reporting on someone who holds these views in a toxic culture war ? Did you bother to read the article ?


For presenting the rights and interests of the two groups as being in opposition.


----------



## Reno (Oct 5, 2021)

Athos said:


> For presenting the rights and interests of the two groups as being in opposition.


... members of both communities often present themselves as being in opposition. Why have trans threads here been so acrimonious that they get shut down ?


----------



## Athos (Oct 5, 2021)

Reno said:


> ... members of both communities often present themselves as being in opposition. Why have trans threads here been so acrimonious that they get shut down ?


Most people in both groups recognise that their interests align most of the time.  The focus on the differences is what causes a lot of the acrimony.


----------



## smmudge (Oct 5, 2021)

Reno said:


> Why is the Guardian shit for reporting on someone who holds these views in a toxic culture war ? Did you bother to read the article ?



I believe the Guardian are perpetuating the toxic culture war by implying that people who support trans rights don't usually support women's rights as well. Fucking atrocious really, can't believe they actually wrote that.

I'm not shutting down the views of the person they're writing about, they seem fairly generic trans inclusive if I'm honest, but Guardian has to paint their views as "on the fence" to be able to report on them in a supportive way.


----------



## hitmouse (Oct 5, 2021)

Reno said:


> ... members of both communities often present themselves as being in opposition. Why have trans threads here been so acrimonious that they get shut down ?


Sorry, but I don't think that trans people present themselves as being in opposition to (cis) women. That's a framing that comes from one particular angle.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Oct 5, 2021)

smmudge said:


> Not sure it's such a novel concept that someone can support women's rights as well as trans rights (at the same time??!?!).
> 
> God the guardian are shit.



Also you can't end a war that one side doesn't want to end. Nor one with such an absurd imbalance of objectives between sides; namely the right to exist vs the right to be a gobshite.


----------



## Reno (Oct 5, 2021)

hitmouse said:


> Sorry, but I don't think that trans people present themselves as being in opposition to (cis) women. That's a framing that comes from one particular angle.


The article reports that certain prominent (cis) women present themselves in opposition to the interests of transpeople and that this has been getting a lot of publicity stirring up the debate and that isn't wrong. I don't see anything about transpeople presenting themselves in opposition to (cis) women in the article.


----------



## hitmouse (Oct 5, 2021)

Reno said:


> The article reports on that certain prominent (cis) women present themselves in opposition to the interests of transpeople and that this has been getting a lot of publicity and that isn't wrong. I don't see anything about transpeople presenting themselves in opposition to (cis) women in the article.


Oh yeah, no disagreement with that, I just thought that this post:


Reno said:


> ... members of both communities often present themselves as being in opposition.


Seemed to suggest that trans people were presenting themselves as in opposition to (cis) women, but if that's not what you meant then no worries. About the actual article, I'm still curious as to whether "it is possible to champion both women’s and trans rights" is something that Mackay actually said or if that's a form of wording that the Guardian writer chose to put into their mouth, because to me that still suggests two separate groups that don't overlap.


----------



## Reno (Oct 5, 2021)

hitmouse said:


> Oh yeah, no disagreement with that, I just thought that this post:
> 
> Seemed to suggest that trans people were presenting themselves as in opposition to (cis) women, but if that's not what you meant then no worries. About the actual article, I'm still curious as to whether "it is possible to champion both women’s and trans rights" is something that Mackay actually said or if that's a form of wording that the Guardian writer chose to put into their mouth, because to me that still suggests two separate groups that don't overlap.


As someone who works at an advice and crisis centre for transpeople and who has straight and lesbian female friends who are (far from radical) feminists, in my experience, there are certain points of conflict which are genuinely difficult to resolve. I've mostly kept out of these conversarions here because unlike the many (cis) straight men who appear very invested in this debate, as a gay (cis) man it's not my place to tell women or transpeople how to identify themselves or their politics and I don't presume to have the answers apart from "don't be an asshole". I just found the outrage at this particular Guardian article weird as it simply reports on something that is happening (the media debate about feminist vs trans issues) and voices like that of Finn Mackay don't often get exposure in the mainstream media. So hitting the outrage pedal struck me a little OTT.


----------



## smokedout (Oct 5, 2021)

Reno said:


> I just found the outrage at this particular Guardian article weird as it simply reports on something that is happening (the media debate about feminist vs trans issues) and voices like that of Finn Mackay don't often get exposure in the mainstream media. So hitting the outrage pedal struck me a little OTT.



I think presenting Finn as uniquely middle of the road and reasonable could be seen as insulting to the many trans people, including trans activists, who agree with them or have similar views.  It perpetuates the narrative that most politicised trans supportive people are going round demanding lesbians have sex with them and denying biological sex exists when in reality this is largely a fabrication and most people's views are far more aligned with Finns than the grotesque caricatures of trans rights activists invented by their opponents. 

But that's nit-picking a bit, it's a good interview and certainly not one which justifies outrage.  I suspect The Observer yesterday shoe-horning an attack on trans women using women's toilets into a piece that was otherwise about Wayne Couzens and misogyny in the police force has caused lingering rage.


----------



## Serene (Oct 5, 2021)

I just read this article about Carrie Johnson. She has just gone up in my estimation. Well done to her.

Carrie Johnson urges Tories to back transgender rights


----------



## Cloo (Oct 6, 2021)

I found Finn Mackay's views very close to mine - also agree with others here that the actually lots of people do support trans rights and women's rights thank you very much.

What also struck me thinking about this yesterday is that some many difficulties for women of all kinds comes down to lack of resources. I often see on social media arguments claiming 'The Trans Lobby is backed by The Establishment and the Media and loads of money!' (it isn't) vs 'Cis Women are backed by The Establishment and the media and all the money' (women's rights are often only backed by establishment and media to the point of being able to throw women under the bus when needed). The fact is, it's white cis, able bodied men who have the Establishment, the Media and the Money - everyone else is fighting over scraps.

If there were well resourced women's refuges, for example, maybe we would be able to have in each area a totally open shelter for all women, and a shelter for women who, for whatever reason, no questions asked and no judgement, don't feel able to share space with trans women right now. But nobody gives enough of a fuck about protecting women and resourcing is incredibly tight and hard won.

Interestingly, just after I was thinking about this last night I saw a tweet from a transwoman laconically noting that for all those people saying 'Build your own spaces' her answer would be 'OK, I'll just go do that with all the resources I have lying around' and she totally has a point, but the fact is women as a whole don't have those resources either.

Which is why it breaks my heart a bit that sometimes on the Left, people wanting to do the right thing sometimes end up rushing into critising cis women for being unkind and unwelcoming TERFS to trans women in need, when the fact is women as whole (trans or cis) have so fucking little resource for their needs, given we are half the population, and that is the problem at the heart of all this.

Sorry for brain dump, was literally lying awake thinking about this. I'm sure this isn't some very original thought and that someone who knows all the issues better has thought it out more thoroughly than me....


----------



## smokedout (Oct 6, 2021)

I agree the lack of resources is the key issue, especially when it comes to refuges, and where I disagree with Finn's interview is the implication that there are already some specialist resources for trans/queer/non binary people.  There might be some sparse specialised counselling but there are no specialised refuges or accommodation providers I'm aware of - meaning that if a trans woman needs to leave a violent partner unless she can find a trans inclusive refuge there is nowhere for her to go.  I think a properly funded VAWG sector with a range of provision to ensure a place of safety for everyone whatever their needs would take a huge amount of the heat out of this conflict.

I think another problem though is that a lot of people, and especially GC people, don't really believe that trans women suffer from sexual violence, or if they do it's very rare when in fact it's endemic.  And this is partly because it's assumed that straight men have no interest in trans women - an assumption which has been magnified by the recent dogmatic insistence that sexual attraction can only ever be based on biological sex and not gender. But you only need to talk to trans sex workers about who their clients are to realise that huge numbers of straght men have sex, or want sex with trans women, but very few are prepared to openly admit it.  The kind of creepy men who contact trans women on dating sites will frequently open with the question R U discreet - meaning will you fuck me in secret.  There are clubs in every big city (or were pre-Covid) where men who overwhemingly identify as straight go to pick up trans women - or more commonly cross dressers, but it's frequently a secretive activity.  There are vast numbers of couples on hook up apps looking for trans women because 'he' wants to try it.

This secrecy not only makes trying to navigate relationships dangerous for trans women attracted to men but it also hides a huge amount of often abusive male behaviour.  And it happens because many men cannot own their sexuality because they're so terrified they might be thought of as gay.  I don't really know how this can be addressed, other than a recognition that sexuality is often far more complex than is often assumed and believing trans women when they say this is happening.  Sadly things seem to be sliding in the exact opposite direction.

(and before the angry straight men pipe up, I'm not saying all straight men are into trans women, just that a lot are, certainly enough to generate a significant trans sex work and 'shemale' porn industry and the secrecy associated with this desire doesn't just create the perfect conditions for abuse but also mean that abuse is often not recognised by wider society.)


----------



## 19force8 (Oct 7, 2021)

Reno said:


> Why is the Guardian shit for reporting on someone who holds these views in a toxic culture war ? Did you bother to read the article ?


The Guardian is shit for publishing shit like this which uses the death of Sarah Everard to push their shit transphobia:









						You can’t opt in and out of taking violence against women seriously | Catherine Bennett
					

Sarah Everard’s murder has highlighted the inconsistencies in the provision of safe spaces




					www.theguardian.com
				




and shit like this that manages to shoe horn the same shit into an editorial about how the Met are shit at dealing with misogyny:









						The Observer view on institutional misogyny in the Metropolitan police | Observer editorial
					

Sarah Everard’s murder has shaken public confidence in the Met and an independent inquiry must take place without delay




					www.theguardian.com


----------



## HoratioCuthbert (Oct 7, 2021)

19force8 said:


> The Guardian is shit for publishing shit like this which uses the death of Sarah Everard to push their shit transphobia:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I won't read that article, the headline sounds like a machine learning programme that was fed Glinner's twitter feed for 5 years. Makes no sense.


----------



## Shechemite (Oct 16, 2021)

The Stock Out demo looks lovely


----------



## ViolentPanda (Oct 16, 2021)

MadeInBedlam said:


> The Stock Out demo looks lovely


How to win friends & (more importantly) influence people.


----------



## Edie (Oct 16, 2021)

MadeInBedlam said:


> The Stock Out demo looks lovely


I would hope they are just silly little kids


----------



## dylans (Oct 17, 2021)

belboid said:


> Anyway, all co-ops bullshit is just a sad attempt to force the issue onto trivialities and to ignore the material reality of the level of bias against trans people.   Shameful.


The material reality is my daughter's right not to be presented with a naked mans penis when she attends a spar or a shared changing room. and not to  have her objections dismissed as bigotry because that man waving his dick in her face wears a dress and lippy and calls himself Shirley.

That's what single sex spaces means.


----------



## Orang Utan (Oct 17, 2021)

dylans said:


> The material reality is my daughter's right not to be presented with a naked mans penis when she attends a spar or a shared changing room. and not to  have her objections dismissed as bigotry because that man waving his dick in her face wears a dress and lippy and calls himself Shirley.
> 
> That's what single sex spaces means.


That certainly is bigotry. Have a word with yourself.


----------



## dylans (Oct 17, 2021)

Orang Utan said:


> That certainly is bigotry. Have a word with yourself.


So women have to give up their safe spaces to indulge the demands of men. That sounds like misogyny to me. Perhaps you should have a word with yourself


----------



## dylans (Oct 17, 2021)

Orang Utan said:


> That certainly is bigotry. Have a word with yourself.


No wonder I haven't been on this site for years. You are all completely mad.


----------



## Athos (Oct 17, 2021)

dylans said:


> The material reality is my daughter's right not to be presented with a naked mans penis when she attends a spar...


----------



## Orang Utan (Oct 17, 2021)

dylans said:


> So women have to give up their safe spaces to indulge the demands of men. That sounds like misogyny to me. Perhaps you should have a word with yourself


‘That man waving his dick in her face wears a dress and lippy and calls himself Shirley’ 
How is that not bigotry? When you find yourself sounding like Richard Littlejohn, it’s time to reassess


----------



## IC3D (Oct 17, 2021)

I don't take my daughter into the men's bathroom it's the disabled toilet or if it's quiet enough she goes in the women's on her own. She's 4. No fucking way would I feel I am safeguarding her if there is someone with a dick in there however they use English language to talk about themselves


----------



## dylans (Oct 17, 2021)

Orang Utan said:


> ‘That man waving his dick in her face wears a dress and lippy and calls himself Shirley’
> How is that not bigotry? When you find yourself sounding like Richard Littlejohn, it’s time to reassess



I am talking about anatomically intact males who identify as women. Trans women who retain male genitalia and the rights of women to spaces where they are not confronted by that male genitalia

If you think women demanding such spaces is bigotry then you are off your rocker.


----------



## Orang Utan (Oct 17, 2021)

dylans said:


> I am talking about anatomically complete males who identify as women. Trans women who retain male genitalia and the rights of women to spaces where they are not confronted by that male genitalia
> 
> If you think women demanding such spaces is bigotry then you are off your rocker.


that's not what i said though, is it? I was calling out the part of your statement that was pure bigotry. and you're a man.


----------



## Athos (Oct 17, 2021)

dylans said:


> I am talking about anatomically complete males who identify as women. Trans women who retain male genitalia and the rights of women to spaces where they are not confronted by that male genitalia
> 
> If you think women demanding such spaces is bigotry then you are off your rocker.


There's a sensible discussion to be had around single-sex spaces in temperate language; the phraseology you used was deliberately inflammatory.


----------



## Kevbad the Bad (Oct 17, 2021)

Athos said:


> There's a sensible discussion to be had around single-sex spaces in temperate language; the phraseology you used was deliberately inflammatory.


Deliberately inflammatory, if true, is not the same thing as bigotry. When the bigot and transphobe slur is chucked around so liberally then there is no chance of temperate discussion.


----------



## Athos (Oct 17, 2021)

Kevbad the Bad said:


> Deliberately inflammatory, if true, is not the same thing as bigotry. When the bigot and transphobe slur is chucked around so liberally then there is no chance of temperate discussion.


I didn't call him a bigot.  But, whilst I agree with your point about the overuse of those terms in much of the discourse on this topic, those comments were, at the very least,  pretty close to the line.


----------



## Fozzie Bear (Oct 17, 2021)

I am not very sporty but had assumed that waving genitalia in kids’ faces in changing rooms was generally frowned upon already. Is that not the case?


----------



## Kevbad the Bad (Oct 17, 2021)

Athos said:


> those comments were, at the very least,  pretty close to the line.


How unusual, both on Urban and in real life.


----------



## Athos (Oct 17, 2021)

Kevbad the Bad said:


> How unusual, both on Urban and in real life.


----------



## belboid (Oct 17, 2021)

dylans said:


> The material reality is my daughter's right not to be presented with a naked mans penis when she attends a spar or a shared changing room. and not to  have her objections dismissed as bigotry because that man waving his dick in her face wears a dress and lippy and calls himself Shirley.
> 
> That's what single sex spaces means.


you're still the same old woman hating piece of shit, I see.

Fuck off again, there's a good little bigot.


----------



## dylans (Oct 17, 2021)

belboid said:


> you're still the same old woman hating piece of shit, I see.
> 
> Fuck off again, there's a good little bigot.


You are the one fighting for the right for rapists and sex offenders to share prison cells with women 

and yet I am the women hater?


----------



## smokedout (Oct 17, 2021)

MadeInBedlam said:


> The Stock Out demo looks lovely



Pretty sure that photo is from the demo outside the Filia Conference, not the Sussex Uni demo about Stock.


----------



## belboid (Oct 17, 2021)

dylans said:


> You are the one fighting for the right for rapists and sex offenders to share prison cells with women
> 
> and yet I am the women hater?


Yup, I remember why you disappeared before, shit head.  You still prefer your women locked in the back of trucks, don’t you?


----------



## dylans (Oct 17, 2021)

belboid said:


> Yup, I remember why you disappeared before, shit head.  You still prefer your women locked in the back of trucks, don’t you?


Well,  not _only_ trucks


----------



## Orang Utan (Oct 17, 2021)

dylans said:


> You are the one fighting for the right for rapists and sex offenders to share prison cells with women
> 
> and yet I am the women hater?


When did I say I was doing that?


----------



## dylans (Oct 17, 2021)

Orang Utan said:


> When did I say I was doing that?


I wasn't referring to you.


----------



## elbows (Oct 17, 2021)

dylans said:


> You are the one fighting for the right for rapists and sex offenders to share prison cells with women
> 
> and yet I am the women hater?



The existence of sex offenders of all forms means that attention to detail is required when debating how things should be in highly specific scenarios.

A grotesque disservice is done to all when this stuff is crudely used in emotive ways in order to promote a transphobic agenda. Many people were not inclined to fall for that shit when it came to gay rights and the existence of some people who sought to engage in sexual activity with children being used to generate emotive propaganda in support of things like section 28. And yet some people who found it easy to oppose those conflations and the deadly dog whistle shit back in the day do not even begin to apply the same principals when it comes to trans rights.


----------



## dylans (Oct 17, 2021)

elbows said:


> The existence of sex offenders of all forms means that attention to detail is required when debating how things should be in highly specific scenarios.
> 
> A grotesque disservice is done to all when this stuff is crudely used in emotive ways in order to promote a transphobic agenda. Many people were not inclined to fall for that shit when it came to gay rights and the existence of some people who sought to engage with sexual activity with children being used to generate emotive propaganda in support of things like section 28. And yet some people who found it easy to oppose those conflations and the deadly dog whistle shit back in the day do not even begin to apply the same principals when it comes to trans rights.


The need for women only prisons and other safe spaces is not  an issue because trans women pose some unique threat to women. Safe spaces are an issue because anatomically intact males, males with genitals and male strength etc are men and 99% of sex offenses against women are by men.  |

So the objection is not to "trans women" sharing women's spaces but men sharing such spaces and anatomically intact males are men.


----------



## dylans (Oct 17, 2021)

elbows said:


> The existence of sex offenders of all forms means that attention to detail is required when debating how things should be in highly specific scenarios.
> 
> A grotesque disservice is done to all when this stuff is crudely used in emotive ways in order to promote a transphobic agenda. Many people were not inclined to fall for that shit when it came to gay rights and the existence of some people who sought to engage with sexual activity with children being used to generate emotive propaganda in support of things like section 28. And yet some people who found it easy to oppose those conflations and the deadly dog whistle shit back in the day do not even begin to apply the same principals when it comes to trans rights.


Furthermore. I find it quite baffling and yes, grotesque, that the genuine fears of very vulnerable women who object to sharing a cell with someone with a penis and male strength, (and quite possibly a history of sexual violence) should be dismissed as bigotry just because the dick belongs to someone who identifies as a women and who calls his penis a "lady dick".


----------



## Athos (Oct 17, 2021)

dylans said:


> Furthermore. I find it quite baffling and yes, grotesque, that the genuine fears of very vulnerable women who object to sharing a cell with someone with a penis and male strength, (and quite possibly a history of sexual violence) should be dismissed as bigotry just because the dick belongs to someone who identifies as a women and who calls his penis a "lady dick".


Is anyone on this thread dismissing those genuine fears as bigotry, though?


----------



## Shechemite (Oct 17, 2021)

smokedout said:


> Pretty sure that photo is from the demo outside the Filia Conference, not the Sussex Uni demo about Stock.



Yeah my bad, cheers.


----------



## elbows (Oct 17, 2021)

dylans said:


> Furthermore. I find it quite baffling and yes, grotesque, that the genuine fears of very vulnerable women who object to sharing a cell with someone with a penis and male strength, (and quite possibly a history of sexual violence) should be dismissed as bigotry just because the dick belongs to someone who identifies as a women and who calls his penis a "lady dick".



There is a long history of transphobes on u75 making extensive use of that sort of angle. Some of the language used was usually a giveaway, or the posters concerned also revealing their problematic attitudes towards trans issues far beyond various issues of womens safety. I dont think you were a part of those discussions in the past, I hope we dont have to repeat all of that appalling shit again now for your benefit.

At times it got so bad that I had to ban myself completely from reacting to such discussions, a stance that has now slipped twice in recent months. I will try again.


----------



## hitmouse (Oct 17, 2021)

Kevbad the Bad said:


> Deliberately inflammatory, if true, is not the same thing as bigotry. When the bigot and transphobe slur is chucked around so liberally then there is no chance of temperate discussion.


It's such a shame that we were so close to being able to have a sensible, temperate discussion about men wearing lipstick and rubbing their dicks in children's faces but now it's been ruined by the people using unhelpfully emotive language and imagery.  


dylans said:


> The need for women only prisons and other safe spaces is not  an issue because trans women pose some unique threat to women. Safe spaces are an issue because anatomically intact males, males with genitals and male strength etc are men and 99% of sex offenses against women are by men.  |
> 
> So the objection is not to "trans women" sharing women's spaces but men sharing such spaces and anatomically intact males are men.


You do realise that anatomically intact males, males with genitals and male strength already have access to women's prisons, right?








						Women prisoners 'coerced into sex with staff'
					

Female prisoners have been "coerced" into having sex with staff in return for favours such as alcohol and cigarettes, a report suggests.



					www.bbc.co.uk
				












						Inside UK's biggest women's prison - with sex favours for drugs and daily fights
					

Former private school pupil Sophie Campbell was locked up at HMP Bronzefield in Middlesex for attacking a police officer - here she shares what she saw behind bars




					www.mirror.co.uk
				




Still, they're in uniform, so I'm sure it must be fine, it's not like men in uniform ever misuse their authority.


----------



## hitmouse (Oct 17, 2021)

prisons and other safe spaces. _*prisons and other safe spaces.*_


----------



## dylans (Oct 17, 2021)

hitmouse said:


> It's such a shame that we were so close to being able to have a sensible, temperate discussion about men wearing lipstick and rubbing their dicks in children's faces but now it's been ruined by the people using unhelpfully emotive language and imagery.
> 
> You do realise that anatomically intact males, males with genitals and male strength already have access to women's prisons, right?
> 
> ...


Oh fuck it then, lets do away with single sex prisons entirely. What's the point if they are already full of rapists in uniform. Instead of challenging that kind of institutional corruption, lets just make the entire institution mixed sex and let any old serial rapist share the cells and showers with women prisoners. The more the merrier. 

Stupid argument. It amounts to saying, oh because institutional abuse and corruption already exists lets throw the doors open and not bother with women's safety at all


----------



## hitmouse (Oct 17, 2021)

dylans said:


> Oh fuck it then, lets do away with single sex prisons entirely. What's the point if they are already full of rapists in uniform. Instead of challenging that kind of institutional corruption, lets just make the entire institution mixed sex and let any old serial rapist share the cells and showers with women prisoners. The more the merrier.
> 
> Stupid argument. It amounts to saying, oh because institutional abuse and corruption already exists lets throw the doors open and not bother with women's safety at all


What are you doing to challenge this kind of institutional corruption? Maintaining these safe spaces is obviously very important to you, so let's hear about the work that you're doing to get men out of women's prisons.


----------



## hitmouse (Oct 17, 2021)

I think a lot of prisoners would probably agree with "let's throw the doors open", fwiw.


----------



## dylans (Oct 17, 2021)

hitmouse said:


> What are you doing to challenge this kind of institutional corruption? Maintaining these safe spaces is obviously very important to you, so let's hear about the work that you're doing to get men out of women's prisons.


Me? Oh I'm just some gobshite talking bollocks on the internet on a rainy sunday afternoon. The same as 99% of posters on here. I didn't realise I had to have a certified history of activism in order to have an opinion,

Unlike yourself of course. So please enlighten us all with the great work you are doing seeing you obviously  have the moral high ground here.


----------



## smokedout (Oct 17, 2021)

MadeInBedlam said:


> Yeah my bad, cheers.



It's a stupid and misogynist placard that really isn't helpful but I think it's important to be accurate about what's going on at Sussex given gender criticals have been contacting Sussex Police demanding that criticism or protests about Stock's views be treated as terrorism.


----------



## belboid (Oct 17, 2021)

smokedout said:


> It's a stupid and misogynist placard that really isn't helpful but I think it's important to be accurate about what's going on at Sussex given gender criticals have been contacting Sussex Police demanding that criticism or protests about Stock's views be treated as terrorism.


Including the claim that flying the trans flag amounted to harassment.  Brave protectors of free speech my arse


----------



## smokedout (Oct 17, 2021)

belboid said:


> Including the claim that flying the trans flag amounted to harassment.  Brave protectors of free speech my arse



Given Stock signed a document calling for a worldwide ban on any kind of research which may result in people being born physically male ever being able to gestate, demands that no publically funded bodies be permitted to discuss gender identity in schools, insists that any kind of trans healthcare for children be banned regardless of evidence and that organisations which support the concept of gender identity not be permitted to have any say in the treatment of gender dysphoria in young people then I'm taking Stock's claim to support academic freedom with a pinch of salt.


----------



## Edie (Oct 17, 2021)

hitmouse said:


> It's such a shame that we were so close to being able to have a sensible, temperate discussion about men wearing lipstick and rubbing their dicks in children's faces but now it's been ruined by the people using unhelpfully emotive language and imagery.
> 
> You do realise that anatomically intact males, males with genitals and male strength already have access to women's prisons, right?
> 
> ...


Are you daft? Are you unable to tell the difference between a guard and an inmate? If you were a woman in prison, would you be able to tell the difference do you think? Here’s a clue: you are locked in a cell for 23 hours a day with one of them and not the other.


----------



## smokedout (Oct 17, 2021)

Edie said:


> Are you daft? Are you unable to tell the difference between a guard and an inmate? If you were a woman in prison, would you be able to tell the difference do you think? Here’s a clue: you are locked in a cell for 23 hours a day with one of them and not the other.



On the other hand a trans inmate can't fit you up on a bogus drugs charge and get months added to your sentence if you don't do what they want.

Trans women do not share cells with cis women in UK prisons incidentally.


----------



## Edie (Oct 17, 2021)

smokedout said:


> Trans women do not share cells with cis women in UK prisons incidentally.


This was literally the first result on Google


----------



## hitmouse (Oct 17, 2021)

dylans said:


> Me? Oh I'm just some gobshite talking bollocks on the internet on a rainy sunday afternoon. The same as 99% of posters on here. I didn't realise I had to have a certified history of activism in order to have an opinion,
> 
> Unlike yourself of course. So please enlighten us all with the great work you are doing seeing you obviously  have the moral high ground here.


OK, maybe I'm setting the bar too high here. Tell me about your opinions. What are your opinions about what a "safe space" prison would look like? Personally, I think getting more women out of prison would probably do more to keep them safe than demanding trans women have to be sent to men's prisons.


Edie said:


> Are you daft? Are you unable to tell the difference between a guard and an inmate? If you were a woman in prison, would you be able to tell the difference do you think?


Which one of them has more coercive power? And, out of cis male guards and trans women prisoners, which one do you think cis women prisoners encounter more frequently? As for "being locked in a cell with them for 23 hours a day" - who exactly has the keys in this situation?


----------



## Edie (Oct 17, 2021)

hitmouse said:


> OK, maybe I'm setting the bar too high here. Tell me about your opinions. What are your opinions about what a "safe space" prison would look like? Personally, I think getting more women out of prison would probably do more to keep them safe than demanding trans women have to be sent to men's prisons.
> 
> Which one of them has more coercive power? And, out of cis male guards and trans women prisoners, which one do you think cis women prisoners encounter more frequently? As for "being locked in a cell with them for 23 hours a day" - who exactly has the keys in this situation?


You have no idea. Sorry. Just no idea.


----------



## smokedout (Oct 17, 2021)

Edie said:


> You have no idea. Sorry. Just no idea.



There are around 34 trans women held in women's jails, all have been subject to extensive risk assessment, several are held in a specialist unit and not allowed unsupervised contact with other prisoners and all are subject to rules relating to privacy and risk assessments regarding cell allocation, use of showers etc.  The idea that trans women in prisons represents anything like the threat that comes from male staff is absurd and offensive given the high profile cases which have consistently emerged of male prison officers engaging in organised and systemic sexual abuse.  Most women in prison will never even come across a trans prisoner.

Reported sexual assaults in UK prisons are thankfully quite low compared to other countries, although it is likely many go unreported.  On average roughly one in 300 prisoners report being a victim of sexual assault in an average year.  The figures fell considerably in the last year which I suspect might be down to everyone being locked down because of Covid, but rates of assaults are pretty similar in both the male and female estate (in fact they are slightly higher in the female estate but not by enough to draw any meaningful conclusions).

In the recent Judicial Revew looking into the legality of holding trans women in women's prisons (it's legal btw) it emerged that 11 trans prisoners had reported being sexually assaulted in the male estate in the most recent year whilst there were no recorded incidents of trans women sexually assaulting anyone in the female estate.  The exact figure is a bit blurry but there's probably about 120 trans prisoners in the male estate.  So based on this figure in the most recent year almost 10% of trans prisoners in the male estate are were sexually assaulted compared to about 0.3% of non trans prisoners. This suggests trans prisoners in the male estate are 30 times more likely to be sexually assaulted than cis male or female prisoners in either estate.

Just to give you an idea.


----------



## dylans (Oct 17, 2021)

hitmouse said:


> OK, maybe I'm setting the bar too high here. Tell me about your opinions. What are your opinions about what a "safe space" prison would look like? Personally, I think getting more women out of prison would probably do more to keep them safe than demanding trans women have to be sent to men's prisons.
> 
> Which one of them has more coercive power? And, out of cis male guards and trans women prisoners, which one do you think cis women prisoners encounter more frequently? As for "being locked in a cell with them for 23 hours a day" - who exactly has the keys in this situation?


This is not the argument you think it is. Because one can agree completely about the corrosive effect and impact of institutional corruption and abuse by guards and I do.  One can agree completely on the need for massive, widespread and radical prison reform including, yes, the release of all non violent prisoners into the community and a radical restructuring of sentencing away from custodial sentences, and I do. 

and yet none of that is any kind of argument in the slightest for the introduction of anatomically intact male trans women into prisons, a process which has only one effect which is to further undermine the safety and rights of female prisoners. 

Which makes your entire argument one massive and irrelevant straw man


----------



## dylans (Oct 17, 2021)

smokedout said:


> There are around 34 trans women held in women's jails, all have been subject to extensive risk assessment, several are held in a specialist unit and not allowed unsupervised contact with other prisoners and all are subject to rules relating to privacy and risk assessments regarding cell allocation, use of showers etc.  The idea that trans women in prisons represents anything like the threat that comes from male staff is absurd and offensive given the high profile cases which have consistently emerged of male prison officers engaging in organised and systemic sexual abuse.  Most women in prison will never even come across a trans prisoner.
> 
> Reported sexual assaults in UK prisons are thankfully quite low compared to other countries, although it is likely many go unreported.  On average roughly one in 300 prisoners report being a victim of sexual assault in an average year.  The figures fell considerably in the last year which I suspect might be down to everyone being locked down because of Covid, but rates of assaults are pretty similar in both the male and female estate (in fact they are slightly higher in the female estate but not by enough to draw any meaningful conclusions).
> 
> ...


and yet

"The unconditional introduction of a transgender woman into the general population of a women's prison carries a statistically greater risk of sexual assault upon non-transgender prisoners than would be the case if a non-transgender woman were introduced."

 In other words, the rate of trans women's sexual offending patterns are in line with male prisoners which is not really surprising given that they are, in fact, men.


----------



## smokedout (Oct 17, 2021)

dylans said:


> and yet
> 
> "The unconditional introduction of a transgender woman into the general population of a women's prison carries a statistically greater risk of sexual assault upon non-transgender prisoners than would be the case if a non-transgender woman were introduced."
> 
> In other words, their rate of trans women's sexual offending patterns are in line with male prisoners which is not really surprising given that they are, in fact, men.



In typical gender critical fashion you missed the next line in the judgement: "But that statistical conclusion takes no account of the risk assessment which the policies require."

Trans women are not being unconditionally admitted to the women's estate, a very small number are being admitted after extensive assessment.


----------



## teuchter (Oct 17, 2021)

smokedout said:


> In typical gender critical fashion you missed the next line in the judgement: "But that statistical conclusion takes no account of the risk assessment which the policies require."
> 
> Trans women are not being unconditionally admitted to the women's estate, a very small number are being admitted after extensive assessment.


What happens to those that the risk assessment decides should not be admitted? Do they then have to go to a "male" prison?


----------



## Orang Utan (Oct 17, 2021)

dylans said:


> In other words, the rate of trans women's sexual offending patterns are in line with male prisoners which is not really surprising given that they are, in fact, men.


Your bigotry is showing again


----------



## dylans (Oct 17, 2021)

smokedout said:


> In typical gender critical fashion you missed the next line in the judgement: "But that statistical conclusion takes no account of the risk assessment which the policies require."
> 
> Trans women are not being unconditionally admitted to the women's estate, a very small number are being admitted after extensive assessment.





Orang Utan said:


> Your bigotry is showing again


If stating the bleeding obvious is bigotry in your world then you are really through the looking glass and down the rabbit hole.  Biological sex is real and immutable. Women do not have a penis. Men can't have babies and you cannot change sex just because you wish to. 

and yes only women have a cervix


----------



## Orang Utan (Oct 17, 2021)

Ok then. Good to see where you stand then


----------



## iona (Oct 17, 2021)

Pretty sure my cervix isn't going to make most women a whole lot more comfortable about sharing a changing room or prison cell with me tbh


----------



## dylans (Oct 17, 2021)

Orang Utan said:


> Ok then. Good to see where you stand then


With reality? Yeah.


----------



## belboid (Oct 17, 2021)

Thank fuck there is someone brave enough to come along and make these bold and original statements that no one has said before.


----------



## Kevbad the Bad (Oct 17, 2021)

belboid said:


> Thank fuck there is someone brave enough to come along and make these bold and original statements that no one has said before.


It's all been said before.


----------



## smokedout (Oct 17, 2021)

teuchter said:


> What happens to those that the risk assessment decides should not be admitted? Do they then have to go to a "male" prison?



Yes, although accommodations should be made to facilitate privacy and safety such as seperate shower times or having their own cell but they clearly aren't working to protect trans prisoners.


----------



## dylans (Oct 17, 2021)

belboid said:


> Thank fuck there is someone brave enough to come along and make these bold and original statements that no one has said before.


Actually I'm really glad that, with you,  there is still someone brave enough to continue the tradition started by Trofim Lysenko
 I know he's not very fashionable these days so I applaud your efforts for keeping the flame alive.


----------



## Athos (Oct 17, 2021)

smokedout said:


> In typical gender critical fashion you missed the next line in the judgement: "But that statistical conclusion takes no account of the risk assessment which the policies require."
> 
> Trans women are not being unconditionally admitted to the women's estate, a very small number are being admitted after extensive assessment.


As true as that is, there's no getting away from the fact that allowing trans women into female-only spaces (such as prisons) increases the risk of rape. The question is whether or not that incease - which I agree is stastically very small - is something that women should accept in order to minimise the risk to trans women.  Some think it should be, on a net harm-minimisation basis; others think there's no reason why women should forego their hard-won right to single-sex spaces and assume any greater risk (no matter how small) to protect those with male biology who were socialised as boys then men.  I suspect that, ultimately, most preople's decision will come down to whether or not they consider trans women to be women, which, in turn is a political/ideological choice (given that the definition of 'woman' is clearly not fixed for all time and every place, in every social context).  Largely, that'll depend on life experiences; younger people, especially women, who've perhaps not experienced the same levels of male sexual violence, are likely to be more inclusive.


----------



## ginger_syn (Oct 17, 2021)

dylans said:


> I am talking about anatomically intact males who identify as women. Trans women who retain male genitalia and the rights of women to spaces where they are not confronted by that male genitalia
> 
> If you think women demanding such spaces is bigotry then you are off your rocker.


Nobody waives their bits about in a womens toilet so unless your daughter is standing on a toilet and looking into the next cubicle how will she know whats under the dress, is that what your daughter does in toilets.
This is stupid levels of dickery from you.


----------



## dylans (Oct 17, 2021)

ginger_syn said:


> Nobody waives their bits about in a womens toilet so unless your daughter is standing on a toilet and looking into the next cubicle how will she know whats under the dress, is that what your daughter does in toilets.
> This is stupid levels of dickery from you.


I never mentioned toilets.


----------



## HoratioCuthbert (Oct 17, 2021)

dylans said:


> I never mentioned toilets.


Open plan changing rooms? I've never been in one that didn't have cubicles. I'm not sure i would go in one anyway, would find a toilet to change in. 

The dick waving in Spar though, fucking outrageous.


----------



## dylans (Oct 17, 2021)

HoratioCuthbert said:


> Open plan changing rooms? I've never been in one that didn't have cubicles. I'm not sure i would go in one anyway, would find a toilet to change in.
> 
> The dick waving in Spar though, fucking outrageous.


I meant a spa.

Los Angeles authorities have charged a 52-year-old with indecent exposure at a popular Korean spa that was the subject of a viral Instagram post earlier this summer.

The LA police department (LAPD) announced late on Thursday that it had put out an arrest warrant for Darren Merager, who is facing five felony counts of indecent exposure at Wi Spa in the Koreatown neighborhood.
The charges, filed on Monday, come two months after a viral Instagram video from a woman who filmed herself confronting Wi Spa staff about seeing a “man” naked in front of women and girls in the women’s section of the facility: “There are other girls down there, other women who are highly offended for what they just saw, and you did nothing, absolutely nothing,” she can be heard saying in the 24 June video.

Wi Spa staffers respond they had to comply with the law and do not discriminate based on gender identity.









						Person charged with indecent exposure at LA spa after viral Instagram video
					

Charges filed two months after woman’s claims about Wi Spa sparked anti-trans protests




					www.theguardian.com


----------



## belboid (Oct 17, 2021)

dylans said:


> Actually I'm really glad that, with you,  there is still someone brave enough to continue the tradition started by Trofim Lysenko
> I know he's not very fashionable these days so I applaud your efforts for keeping the flame alive.


You were at least being slightly original when you were supporting sex trafficking last time you were here.


----------



## dylans (Oct 17, 2021)

belboid said:


> You were at least being slightly original when you were supporting sex trafficking last time you were here.


I think that's libellous.


----------



## smokedout (Oct 17, 2021)

dylans said:


> I meant a spa.
> 
> Los Angeles authorities have charged a 52-year-old with indecent exposure at a popular Korean spa that was the subject of a viral Instagram post earlier this summer.
> 
> ...



So you're talking about something which has happened once, on the other side of the world, and which resulted in someone being charged wih an offence.  I'm not really sure what this has got to do with a trans women trying on some clothes in a cubicle in the UK.  Naked spas aren't really a thing here are they?


----------



## editor (Oct 17, 2021)

dylans said:


> I think that's libellous.


It's certainly an unpleasant accusation but you should read this before consulting a solicitor: 




__





						Basic UK libel law for idiots by Adam Porter
					

Basic UK libel law for idiots, urban75, one of the UK's busiest online magazines featuring photography, short stories and useless games!



					www.urban75.org


----------



## bimble (Oct 17, 2021)

Thread is a shit Punch and Judy show. Which is fine because there’s no place on here for any other kind of conversation in this area, I think it’s interesting that the BBC and Sussex uni and the Green Party are all sort of turning on themselves & imploding in related ways at the moment but imaginary people called Shirley waving their dicks around scaring children ftw.


----------



## Edie (Oct 17, 2021)

I won’t have any man telling me that I have to agree to be locked up with a man (or put in a mental health locked ward, or a police cell, or share a toilet or a changing room with men), to protect their right to identify as a woman.

I don’t think that men who identify as women actually become women if they take hormones and have surgery. They become men who have modified their bodies and taken female hormones and are choosing to identify as women. 

I see nothing wrong with referring to trans women or men as their chosen pronoun. I think they should be provided separate prison accommodation and toilets etc. And I absolutely defend their right to live in peace and with respect, however they choose to look and identify or live their lives.

But when it comes to the hard reality, I support womens rights to defend ourselves from men raping and harassing and murdering us, before mens rights to identify as women.


----------



## smokedout (Oct 17, 2021)

Edie said:


> I won’t have any man telling me that I have to agree to be locked up with a man (or put in a mental health locked ward, or a police cell, or share a toilet or a changing room with men), to protect their right to identify as a woman.
> 
> I don’t think that men who identify as women actually become women if they take hormones and have surgery. They become men who have modified their bodies and taken female hormones and are choosing to identify as women.
> 
> ...



So what is a trans women supposed to do if she needs the toilet or to get changed?


----------



## smokedout (Oct 17, 2021)

Do you think trans women and girls will have the right to live in peace and with respect if they are forced to use male toilets and changing rooms?


----------



## Orang Utan (Oct 17, 2021)

and then there's the always conveniently overlooked rights of trans men and their right to safety


----------



## Edie (Oct 17, 2021)

smokedout said:


> So what is a trans women supposed to do if she needs the toilet or to get changed?


Use the gender neutral facilities provided!


----------



## Kevbad the Bad (Oct 17, 2021)

Orang Utan said:


> and then there's the always conveniently overlooked rights of trans men and their right to safety


So what's your solution to that then?


----------



## Orang Utan (Oct 17, 2021)

Kevbad the Bad said:


> So what's your solution to that then?


dunno why you are asking me that


----------



## Kevbad the Bad (Oct 17, 2021)

Orang Utan said:


> dunno why you are asking me that


Cos you brought the subject up


----------



## Orang Utan (Oct 17, 2021)

Kevbad the Bad said:


> Cos you brought the subject up


the solution to inequality? i don't think so


----------



## Kevbad the Bad (Oct 17, 2021)

Orang Utan said:


> the solution to inequality? i don't think so


I'm not going to say what first came into my head. It wouldn't help. I despair.


----------



## Orang Utan (Oct 17, 2021)

Kevbad the Bad said:


> I'm not going to say what first came into my head. It wouldn't help. I despair.


not sure why you posted this. shit or get off the pot


----------



## smokedout (Oct 17, 2021)

Edie said:


> Use the gender neutral facilities provided!



How many places have gender neutral facilities?


----------



## Edie (Oct 17, 2021)

smokedout said:


> How many places have gender neutral facilities?


Campaign for them. I will join you.


----------



## smokedout (Oct 17, 2021)

Edie said:


> Campaign for them. I will join you.



It took disabled people decades to win accessible toilets, then another couple of decades to implement them and even now many places don't have them because they are listed or the architecture doesn't support an accessible toilet.  What about trans women who want to use the toilet today, what should they do?


----------



## smokedout (Oct 17, 2021)

Sorry Edie but this is such a shit argument.  The idea that a campaign to force every pub, cafe, shop and other public space to undertake significant building work to install additional changing rooms and toilets to accommodate trans people is something that's ever likely to be successful is disingenuous to say the least, especially as most people don't care about trans people using toilets and changing rooms inline with their gender as they have for decades.

At least be honest and concede that were you to get what you want then trans women will have to use the men's or not use public facilties at all and if there are any negative consequences for trans people arising from that then it's just tough shit.


----------



## dylans (Oct 17, 2021)

smokedout said:


> Sorry Edie but this is such a shit argument.  The idea that a campaign to force every pub, cafe, shop and other public space to undertake significant building work to install additional changing rooms and toilets to accommodate trans people is something that's ever likely to be successful is disingenuous to say the least, especially as most people don't care about trans people using toilets and changing rooms inline with their gender as they have for decades.
> 
> At least be honest and concede that were you to get what you want then trans women will have to use the men's or not use public facilties at all and if there are any negative consequences for trans people arising from that then it's just tough shit.


They should use the mens because they are men. They could even use the urinals.

To be honest, I don't really care which toilet they use. I don't really care which toilet anyone uses. I think there are much bigger issues such as prisons, domestic violence refuges, rape crisis centres, hospital wards, sports competitions etc that are more important.

There is also a larger point that women's and gay peoples identities are being erased. Lesbian dating sites are increassingly expected to indulge anatomically male trans women claiming to be lesbians and are called bigots when they object to what are really heterosexual men with dicks and facial hair demanding relationships with them.

Gay people are increasingly being told that the identity many of them fought for as SAME SEX ATTRACTED is no longer longer valid and has been replaced with same gender attraction, a definition that leads to the absurd situation where lesbians are attacked or labelled as genital obsessives" for rejecting potential partners with penises or gay men are called bigots for rejecting trans men with vaginas. If biological sex is no longer the basis for sexual attraction, if everything is now fluid and based on identity and something as subjective and undefinable as "gender" if an anatomically intact male person with a dick can call themselves a lesbian, then homosexuality no longer exists.


----------



## Raheem (Oct 17, 2021)

There would surely have to be at least four sets of everything. There's no clear reason to suppose that the trans women will be less of a danger to the trans men than they were to the cis women.


----------



## smokedout (Oct 17, 2021)

Trans activist:  Hello pub owning person, will you sign my petition.  I want to force you to build a seperate toilet for trans women.
Pub owning person: What really?
Trans activist:  Yes and then when it's built your staff will have to make sure that everyone who goes in the women's toilets has female genitals and xx chromosones
Pub owning person: What, that's daft, we've had a trans women who's a regular for years, she uses the women's loos, no-ones ever complained
Trans activist:  Well she can't anymore she needs her own toilet.
Pub owning person:  Is that what trans women want?
Trans activist:  No
Pub owning person: Then why should I build a new toilet?
Trans activist: The gender criticals say so.
Pub owning person: Who on earth are they?
Trans activist: A couple of thousand people on the internet, they say you are putting women at risk.
Pub owning person: Why, wait, has something happend, have women been attacked or something.
Trans activist: No.
Pub owning person: Then how am I putting women at risk.
Trans activist: It might happen.  
Pub owning person:  You want me to spend tens of thouands of pounds building a new toilet for one customer because some people on the internet are worried she might attack someone one day.
Transactivist:  Yes, will you sign my petition.

I don't have high hopes for this campaign.


----------



## teuchter (Oct 18, 2021)

It may well not be what Edie is thinking of, but one way of providing gender neutral facilities (at least, as far as things like pub toilets are concerned) is simply to remove the signs on all of the doors and do a few things like making sure that all cubicles actually have working locks and so on. This does not cost tens of thousands of pounds.


----------



## Edie (Oct 18, 2021)

To be frank, I just don’t prioritise the toilet issue for men who identify as women over Women’s rights to protect ourselves  against male violence. 

Men murder, rape, and sexually harass women daily. In the face of that femicide, men who identify as women using a gender neutral toilet is not comparable.

You are prioritising men’s feelings over women’s lives. I object.


----------



## Athos (Oct 18, 2021)

Edie said:


> You are prioritising men’s feelings over women’s lives. I object.


That's not entirely fair.  There's a risk to trans women - whom I accept you consider to be men - from being forced to use men's toilets (unless and until toilets are gender neutral). I get how many women don't consider that risk anything to do with for feminism (any more than any of the myriad risks some men pose to other vulnerable males), but it is not just a matter of feelings.


----------



## Edie (Oct 18, 2021)

Athos said:


> That's not entirely fair.  There's a risk to trans women - whom I accept you consider to be men - from being forced to use men's toilets. I get how many women don't consider that risk anything to do with for feminism (any more than any of the myriad risks some men pose to other vulnerable males), but it is not just a matter of feelings.


The scale is incomparable. And the problem solvable with gender neutral facilities. 

That is where the campaign should focus, and I would support that, not in access to female protected facilities, sports, prisons, hospitals and refuges. The fact it is focused on accessing womens space is because it is concerned with forcing an ideology (trans women are women) not just safety. 

Even if it is a safety issue, which I accept, why should the safety of 1% men who identify as women be placed ahead of 52% of the population born as women?! That’s misogyny. I reject it.


----------



## Athos (Oct 18, 2021)

Edie said:


> The scale is incomparable. And the problem solvable with gender neutral facilities.
> 
> That is where the campaign should focus, and I would support that, not in access to female protected facilities, sports, prisons, hospitals and refuges. The fact it is focused on accessing womens space is because it is concerned with forcing an ideology (trans women are women) not just safety.
> 
> Even if it is a safety issue, which I accept, why should the safety of 1% men who identify as women be placed ahead of 52% of the population born as women?! That’s misogyny. I reject it.



No, I get that.  My point wasn't that you (or any woman) should have to accept any greater risk, necessarily, but that it's not fair to pretend it's a question of risk of harm on one side versus feelings on another.  A recognition that there's risks to either approach leads to two questions: first, the practical one of assessing the size of the risks (to women as a result of trans women having access to single-sex spaces, and to trans women as a result of being excluded); and, secondly, the philosophical one of who should bear that risk i.e. whether it's right for cis women to assume any risk (no matter how small) to protect trans women. I suspect the latter will come down to whether you see trans women as men or women in this context.


----------



## Edie (Oct 18, 2021)

Athos said:


> No, I get that.  My point wasn't that you (or any woman) should have to accept any greater risk, necessarily, but that it's not fair to pretend it's a question of risk of harm on one side versus feelings on another.  A recognition that there's risks to either approach leads to two questions: first, the practical one of assessing the size of the risks (to women as a result of trans women having access to single-sex spaces, and to trans women as a result of being excluded); and, secondly, the philosophical one of who should bear that risk i.e. whether it's right for cis women to assume any risk (no matter how small) to protect trans women. I suspect the latter will come down to whether you see trans women as men or women in this context.


Gender neutral facilities. Problem solved. No drama.


----------



## ItWillNeverWork (Oct 18, 2021)

smokedout said:


> How many places have gender neutral facilities?



Disabled toilets are gender neutral, and most places have a disabled toilet.


----------



## Reno (Oct 18, 2021)

ItWillNeverWork said:


> Disabled toilets are gender neutral, and most places have a disabled toilet.


In my experience most restaurants, cafes & pubs don’t have disabled toilets.


----------



## Athos (Oct 18, 2021)

Edie said:


> Gender neutral facilities. Problem solved. No drama.


Yes, that would seem the most obvious answer. And didn't ought to be too difficult or costly to implement quickly - make both toilets unisex, take out urinals and ensure stalls are private and lockable.

Worth noting that there are many on either side of the debate who find such an accommodation unacceptable, though.


----------



## Yossarian (Oct 18, 2021)

Me, looking at new posts: "Cool, dylans is back!"

10 seconds later, after reading vile transphobic shit:


----------



## HoratioCuthbert (Oct 18, 2021)

Dylans is a write-off, but worryingly some are actually mistaking his bigotry under the cover of feminism for genuine feminism. Because God knows all the men I've trusted over the years are prone to ranting about saving THEIR DAUGHTERS from dick waving Shirley's. And it was really heartwarming to read about the alliance of gender critical feminists and the far right, what could possibly go wrong.


----------



## AnnaKarpik (Oct 18, 2021)

smokedout said:


> Given Stock signed a document calling for a worldwide ban on any kind of research which may result in people being born physically male ever being able to gestate, demands that no publically funded bodies be permitted to discuss gender identity in schools, insists that any kind of trans healthcare for children be banned regardless of evidence and that organisations which support the concept of gender identity not be permitted to have any say in the treatment of gender dysphoria in young people then I'm taking Stock's claim to support academic freedom with a pinch of salt.


What document was that, got a link or a title?


----------



## Diamond (Oct 18, 2021)

Athos said:


> No, I get that.  My point wasn't that you (or any woman) should have to accept any greater risk, necessarily, but that it's not fair to pretend it's a question of risk of harm on one side versus feelings on another.  A recognition that there's risks to either approach leads to two questions: first, the practical one of assessing the size of the risks (to women as a result of trans women having access to single-sex spaces, and to trans women as a result of being excluded); and, secondly, the philosophical one of who should bear that risk i.e. whether it's right for cis women to assume any risk (no matter how small) to protect trans women. I suspect the latter will come down to whether you see trans women as men or women in this context.



It's a question of a network of overlapping rights and obligations, rather than risk, to my mind.  And you need to carry out a balancing test between rights/obligations that are in tension.

An analysis of risk is a component of that picture but it is wrong, IMV, to start from that place.


----------



## MickiQ (Oct 18, 2021)

Athos said:


> Yes, that would seem the most obvious answer. And didn't ought to be too difficult or costly to implement quickly - make both toilets unisex, take out urinals and ensure stalls are private and lockable.
> 
> Worth noting that there are many on either side of the debate who find such an accommodation unacceptable, though.


If women are saying they're worried about being harassed by men pretending to be women don't you think they might be even less enthusiastic about the possibility of being harassed by men who aren't even pretending at all?
I expect this thread to get locked shortly but the argument over using the loo as silly as it might seem does sum up the whole trans rights argument in a nutshell.
Men didn't give up rights so women could have some they gave up privileges (and we kicked up a fuss about that). With the whole trans rights thing tens of millions of women are being told they have to surrender some of their rights so that a few thousand trans individuals can have those they are demanding.


----------



## ginger_syn (Oct 18, 2021)

dylans said:


> They should use the mens because they are men. They could even use the urinals.
> 
> To be honest, I don't really care which toilet they use. I don't really care which toilet anyone uses. I think there are much bigger issues such as prisons, domestic violence refuges, rape crisis centres, hospital wards, sports competitions etc that are more important.
> 
> ...


Utter hysterical bollocks. Do you know any trans people or is all this based on stuff you've read on the internet.


----------



## Athos (Oct 18, 2021)

Diamond said:


> It's a question of a network of overlapping rights and obligations, rather than risk, to my mind.  And you need to carry out a balancing test between rights/obligations that are in tension.
> 
> An analysis of risk is a component of that picture but it is wrong, IMV, to start from that place.


I guess you don't feel at risk, so that's likely to appear less significant to you than it does to some women.


----------



## Athos (Oct 18, 2021)

MickiQ said:


> If women are saying they're worried about being harassed by men pretending to be women don't you think they might be even less enthusiastic about the possibility of being harassed by men who aren't even pretending at all?
> I expect this thread to get locked shortly but the argument over using the loo as silly as it might seem does sum up the whole trans rights argument in a nutshell.
> Men didn't give up rights so women could have some they gave up privileges (and we kicked up a fuss about that). With the whole trans rights thing tens of millions of women are being told they have to surrender some of their rights so that a few thousand trans individuals can have those they are demanding.


There's some truth in that, though it's worth noting, first, that most women appear to be trans inclusive; and, secondly, that it needn't be a zero sum game.


----------



## Miss-Shelf (Oct 18, 2021)

Trans rights and women's rights are compatible 
my rights as a cis woman are not being compromised by the rights of trans women 

I despair of the prejudice that is carelessly tossed onto this thread with no thought of how it impacts on the trans people who post here


----------



## HoratioCuthbert (Oct 18, 2021)

ginger_syn said:


> Utter hysterical bollocks. Do you know any trans people or is all this based on stuff you've read on the internet.


When Glinner was at this stage the next thing he did was start putting fake profiles on dating sites pretending to be trans or something grim like that? But I'm sure that's fine. Sensible even.


----------



## LDC (Oct 18, 2021)

Miss-Shelf said:


> Trans rights and women's rights are compatible
> my rights as a cis woman are not being compromised by the rights of trans women



I was involved in putting on a boxing and grappling match not so long ago. People entered and were matched up in age, weight, sex, and experience categories. We tried to have a discussion about how to match up transwomen in the sessions, and we did loads of reading about sports and sports competitions and how it was managed elsewhere.

We attempted to discuss whether a women entering had a right to step into a ring in front of a load of people with the full expectation that they'd be matched against another woman, rather than someone that possibly to them looked like a man and/or was a no-surgery non-hormone taking transwoman. That was shouted down as 'transphobic' and completely out of order, and _all _women should fine to be matched against a transwomen in a contact sport, and anything else was completely unacceptable, and women were being transphobic to express reservations about this, let alone being against it.

Yeah, a niche situation, but was there no conflict of rights/freedoms/expectations there?

I am a man. I have _never _been scared of a woman, but have been scared _plenty_ of times by other men. I would have got into the ring with any woman in that competition without a second thought, but they'd have been at least few men just at that competition I would have not done that happily with at all.

And yes, we did talk to trans people about how to manage this, and no realistic answer was given. Aside from matching transwomen as women without any difference, other suggestions made included ignoring the sex/gender category altogether, adding a body fat/muscle mass ratio instead (how we were going to measure that wasn't explained), and all sorts of other similar things.

I think it was managed OK in the end, and everyone was happy, and loads was learnt about how to do it better in the future, but it was and is a really difficult topic, made much harder by people telling others that no discussion was allowed and the answer was and is simple; that transwomen are women.

Actually just to add (and I'm not sure what I make of it but it was noted by a few people) was that the people shouting the loudest about how the above was transphobic were not transwomen (who were mostly entirely reasonable when the subject came up) but men and women who made it clear they were trans allies.


----------



## smokedout (Oct 18, 2021)

Edie said:


> The scale is incomparable. And the problem solvable with gender neutral facilities.
> 
> That is where the campaign should focus, and I would support that, not in access to female protected facilities, sports, prisons, hospitals and refuges. The fact it is focused on accessing womens space is because it is concerned with forcing an ideology (trans women are women) not just safety.



I love the way 'campaign for third spaces' is thrown around like some magical shield that immediately absolves someone from any possible harms that could come from their demands.  Because we all know how easy it is to persuade capitalists to spend huge sums of money on unprofitable activities.  I suspect this attitude comes from the vast privilege of many involved in the gender critical movement, who assume all you need to do is write a column for The Times and a bunch of poor people will turn up and build you a toilet.  I had hoped you were more grounded.



> Even if it is a safety issue, which I accept, why should the safety of 1% men who identify as women be placed ahead of 52% of the population born as women?! That’s misogyny. I reject it.



Why should we spend huge sums of money on wheelchair ramps for 1% of the population?  Why should marriage be defiled for 1% of the population? Why should we have to pay tax to pay for unemployment benefits for 1% of the population?  It's called living in a society.  One day you will be in that 1%.

We have a huge dataset now showing what trans inclusion looks like.  Cities like New York who have had specific laws which guarantee trans inclusion in women's toilets for over a decade. In the UK tens of thousands of trans women are using women's toilets every day and have been for decades. Beyond a couple of isolated incidents globally there have been no reported issues.  The chances of being attacked by a trans women in a women's toilet must be hundreds of million to one.  The chance of being attacked by a man in the streets, at work, or in just about any  other environment is far more significant.  I wonder how the angry gender critical men would feel if a similar risk analysis was used to curtail their ability to participate in society?  There's a reason so many men are keen to see feminism focussed on attacking trans women.  Something Dworkin nailed when she was discussing right wing women:


----------



## smokedout (Oct 18, 2021)

AnnaKarpik said:


> What document was that, got a link or a title?



Stock signed the Declaration on Women's Sex Based Rights which calls, amongst other things, for the global elimination of trans people in law and the end of all existing trans rights.  Her current position seems to be that she did sign it, but she didn't agree with it, and people assuming she did is harassment.  Anyway it's here: Declaration on Women's Sex-Based Rights: Full Text - Women's Human Rights Campaign


----------



## Athos (Oct 18, 2021)

smokedout said:


> Stock signed the Declaration on Women's Sex Based Rights which calls, amongst other things, for the global elimination of trans people in law and the end of all existing trans rights.  Her current position seems to be that she did sign it, but she didn't agree with it, and people assuming she did is harassment.  Anyway it's here: Declaration on Women's Sex-Based Rights: Full Text - Women's Human Rights Campaign


Specifically, which part(s) do you say amount to a call for the "elimination of trans people in law and the end of all existing trans rights"?


----------



## smokedout (Oct 18, 2021)

"States should understand that the inclusion of men who claim to have a female ‘gender identity’ into the category of women in law, policies and practice constitutes discrimination against women by impairing the recognition of women’s sex-based human rights."

"These measures should include the provision of single-sex services and physical spaces for women and girls to provide them with safety, privacy, and dignity. Whether provided by public or private entities, such single sex provisions should be allocated on the basis of sex and not ‘gender identity’, and should be staffed by women on the basis of their sex and not ‘gender identity’."

So there goes the Gender Recognition Act and trans people's protections under the Equality Act.  It is an eliminationist manifesto, co-written by Sheila Jeffreys, who is quite open about her desire to see the elimination of what she calls 'the practice of transgenderism'.


----------



## Diamond (Oct 18, 2021)

Athos said:


> I guess you don't feel at risk, so that's likely to appear less significant to you than it does to some women.



So my viewpoint prevents me from analysing the situation...?

Who is allowed to have a view then....?

And why?


----------



## kabbes (Oct 18, 2021)

Diamond said:


> So my viewpoint prevents me from analysing the situation...?
> 
> Who is allowed to have a view then....?
> 
> And why?


It’s more that there is no such thing as a context-free and objective analysis. All analyses start from a subjective understanding of what the world is, how it works, how people interrelate, the meaning of objects and institutions and so on. You can analyse a situation but you can’t do so from some theoretical plane free of this subjectivity. You therefore have to recognise how that perspective has influenced your analysis. If you don’t, your analysis is worthless.


----------



## Diamond (Oct 18, 2021)

I was referring to a legal analysis of the relevant network of rights/obligations.

Not some wishy-washy social science stuff.

The claims here are around rights - that engages the law.


----------



## Athos (Oct 18, 2021)

smokedout said:


> "States should understand that the inclusion of men who claim to have a female ‘gender identity’ into the category of women in law, policies and practice constitutes discrimination against women by impairing the recognition of women’s sex-based human rights."
> 
> "These measures should include the provision of single-sex services and physical spaces for women and girls to provide them with safety, privacy, and dignity. Whether provided by public or private entities, such single sex provisions should be allocated on the basis of sex and not ‘gender identity’, and should be staffed by women on the basis of their sex and not ‘gender identity’."
> 
> So there goes the Gender Recognition Act and trans people's protections under the Equality Act.  It is an eliminationist manifesto, co-written by Sheila Jeffreys, who is quite open about her desire to see the elimination of what she calls 'the practice of transgenderism'.


The call for states to provide sex-based protection for women doesn't preclude them also providing others with protections based on their gender identity.  For instance, a state could mandate that trans women be excluded from female spaces, whilst also mandating the provision of equal facilities for trans women.


----------



## Athos (Oct 18, 2021)

Diamond said:


> So my viewpoint prevents me from analysing the situation...?
> 
> Who is allowed to have a view then....?
> 
> And why?


You're allowed a view; everyone is. But it's hardly surprising that you opinion is informed by your experience.  And a failure to recognise that it's likely to lead you into error.


----------



## JimW (Oct 18, 2021)

Fair play Diamond I wasn't expecting a straight up belly laugh on a thread dealing with serious and for me tricky issue


----------



## kabbes (Oct 18, 2021)

Diamond said:


> I was referring to a legal analysis of the relevant network of rights/obligations.
> 
> Not some wishy-washy social science stuff.
> 
> The claims here are around rights - that engages the law.


Who gives a fuck about that?  This is about what the law should be, not what it is.  And it’s about who is harmed by the law as practised through the complexity of society, not some lawman’s (also subjective) opinion about how law is supposed to be interpreted.


----------



## kabbes (Oct 18, 2021)

JimW said:


> Fair play Diamond I wasn't expecting a straight up belly laugh on a thread dealing with serious and for me tricky issue


Indeed. Speaking as somebody who has had to use many tens of sober legal analyses that turned out to be completely mistaken about how things would play out, the idea that a legal analysis is somehow objective is extremely funny indeed.


----------



## campanula (Oct 18, 2021)

I couldn't really give a fuck about toilets (because I never use them - at least not public ones) but I do reject the idea that refuges, prisons and various situations such as the right to have a female doctor should be compromised. I have been a victim of physical and sexual violence and my life has been irretrievably damaged so no, I don't give a single fuck for the comforts and convenience of men who retain their social, physical and hormonal size and privilege whatever pronouns they want to use or whatever they call themselves...and fwiw, women do not have 'ladydicks' - the very fact that TERF has been a slur to specifically single out women, (despite 99% of violence towards women and transwomen pertains at the hands of men ) is all the proof I need to see that men's rights still prevail and women's safety is (again) compromised because of men. I guess it's easy to feel safe and liberal when you haven't been on the receiving end of unwanted penises and fists but for me (and my daughter and grand-daughter), I will never again let any man put their hands on me or invade my privacy.


----------



## smokedout (Oct 18, 2021)

campanula said:


> I don't give a single fuck for the comforts and convenience of men



10% of trans women in men's prisons were sexually assaulted last year.  This is not about comfort and convenience.


----------



## smokedout (Oct 18, 2021)

The way some who claim to be feminists brush off rape, sexual and physical assault, domestic abuse and just being able to live with some basic fucking dignity as being about comfort and convenience, or validation, or an ideology, is really pretty depressing.


----------



## Diamond (Oct 18, 2021)

Ah well - maybe I'll set out the analysis at some point.  I've been thinking about it a lot.  It's quite a bit of work though.  Simple answer is - it's complicated and no one side clearly has the better case.


----------



## Sweet FA (Oct 18, 2021)

I think I'm now done with threads connected with trans issues; this thread is disgusting and painful to read for many reasons. dylans and his weird cock-waving, changing room fantasy just sends us back to the same hateful shit that was spread all over the other threads.

My gender precludes me from understanding fully the implications but my experience with trans issues is of dealing with depressed and vulnerable children. I do not recognise the predatory bogeyman who stalks these conversations. Instead I see children with scars all over their minds and bodies. I see them turning to sources on the web which are destructive and harmful but who talk their language and who give them an outlet for their anger and anxiety.

The only positive aspect of any of it is that The Kids are so far ahead of us old cunts, it's untrue. The conversations they have & their empathy and understanding puts most of us to shame. dylans, most young people would point and laugh at you, you fucking dinosaur.

Hats off to smokedout and others who continue to respond to some vile, hurtful and disrespectful shit with patience and dignity.


----------



## teuchter (Oct 18, 2021)

smokedout said:


> Yes, although accommodations should be made to facilitate privacy and safety such as seperate shower times or having their own cell but they clearly aren't working to protect trans prisoners.


In your view is the fact that a trans woman is subject to a risk assessment, when being considered for admission to a women's prison, wrong and transphobic? Or is it the case that the risk assessment that is done, is the same one that is done for all potential prisoners whether they are trans or not? Is the risk assessed without regard to the fact that they are a trans woman?


----------



## ginger_syn (Oct 18, 2021)

campanula said:


> I couldn't really give a fuck about toilets (because I never use them - at least not public ones) but I do reject the idea that refuges, prisons and various situations such as the right to have a female doctor should be compromised. I have been a victim of physical and sexual violence and my life has been irretrievably damaged so no, I don't give a single fuck for the comforts and convenience of men who retain their social, physical and hormonal size and privilege whatever pronouns they want to use or whatever they call themselves...and fwiw, women do not have 'ladydicks' - the very fact that TERF has been a slur to specifically single out women, (despite 99% of violence towards women and transwomen pertains at the hands of men ) is all the proof I need to see that men's rights still prevail and women's safety is (again) compromised because of men. I guess it's easy to feel safe and liberal when you haven't been on the receiving end of unwanted penises and fists but for me (and my daughter and grand-daughter), I will never again let any man put their hands on me or invade my privacy.


I have been on the receiving end of that, i blame the men who did that to me  no one else, well the culture that let it happen but never trans people I've never met or the ones i have.


----------



## campanula (Oct 18, 2021)

There are available solutions to keep transwomen safe which do not involve shitting all over women's tiny precious rights to have a guaranteed freedom from male violence, harassment, rape, murder.  We should have been allies but somehow, it doesn't seem to have worked out that way. I  fail to see why I should have to be forced to engage with male hormones, male genitals or male fists. I fucking know what violence feels like and I am not remotely interested in the replies of men on these boards since this is one argument that they have nothing of worth or value to say to me,, thanks..


----------



## Raheem (Oct 18, 2021)

Athos said:


> Yes, that would seem the most obvious answer. And didn't ought to be too difficult or costly to implement quickly - make both toilets unisex, take out urinals and ensure stalls are private and lockable.


The difficulty with that is that, if the goal is to protect cis women from assault and harassment, then making them share toilets and changing rooms with cis men doesn't seem an obvious way of achieving it.

I think we may have hit upon a red herring.


----------



## smokedout (Oct 18, 2021)

teuchter said:


> In your view is the fact that a trans woman is subject to a risk assessment, when being considered for admission to a women's prison, wrong and transphobic? Or is it the case that the risk assessment that is done, is the same one that is done for all potential prisoners whether they are trans or not? Is the risk assessed without regard to the fact that they are a trans woman?



I think an assessment above and beyond the usual risk assessments undertaken before placing all prisoners is reasonable and important.  I don't think Karen White should have been in the general population in a woman's prison and in fact the MoJ admitted this was a mistake, ie policy wasn't followed, not that policy was wrong.

The criteria used for assessing the potential risks of placing a trans women in a women's prison are as follows:

Potential risks presented by the individual to others in custody and an AP related to:
(*indicates critical factors)
• *Offending history, including index offence, past convictions and intelligence of
potential criminal activity- e.g. credible accusations. 
• *Anatomy, including considerations of physical strength and genitalia;
• * Sexual behaviours and relationships within custodial/residential settings;
• *Use of medication relating to gender reassignment; and use of medication generally;
• *Past behaviour in custody, the community, in the care of the police, or in the care of
prisoner escort services;
• *Intelligence reports;
• *Evidence of threats towards others          
• *Mental health and personality disorder;
• Learning disabilities or difficulties;
• Substance misuse.


----------



## teuchter (Oct 18, 2021)

smokedout said:


> I think an assessment above and beyond the usual risk assessments undertaken before placing all prisoners is reasonable and important.  I don't think Karen White should have been in the general population in a woman's prison and in fact the MoJ admitted this was a mistake, ie policy wasn't followed, not that policy was wrong.
> 
> The criteria used for assessing the potential risks of placing a trans women in a women's prison are as follows:
> 
> ...


The thing is that there are lots of examples on this thread, and in these discusions generally, where people are told they are transphobic if they want to make judgements about people, including their risk of doing certain things, based on their physical anatomy. But it sounds like that's exactly what's being done in these prison assessments - so why in that case is it "reasonable and important" rather than transphobic? Is it all down to relative levels of risk and magnitude of consequence? If so, then fair enough perhaps, but then it doesn't seem to make any sense to have this black and white approach to what is transphobia rather than "reasonable and important" questions or worries.


----------



## smokedout (Oct 18, 2021)

teuchter said:


> The thing is that there are lots of examples on this thread, and in these discusions generally, where people are told they are transphobic if they want to make judgements about people, including their risk of doing certain things, based on their physical anatomy. But it sounds like that's exactly what's being done in these prison assessments - so why in that case is it "reasonable and important" rather than transphobic? Is it all down to relative levels of risk and magnitude of consequence? If so, then fair enough perhaps, but then it doesn't seem to make any sense to have this black and white approach to what is transphobia rather than "reasonable and important" questions or worries.



Can you point to some examples on this thread of people being accused of transphobia "if they want to make judgements about people, including their risk of doing certain things, based on their physical anatomy."

There is transphobia on this thread.  Minimising or dismissing trans people's fears of sexual violence as being about comfort or convenience or validation I would say is deeply transphobic.  As are stupid comments about people waving their genitals about.  I'd go further and say that the insistence that something is hugely dangerous, such as trans inclusion in toilets, when we have ample evidence that is not the case is probably rooted in latent transphobia.  I think concerns about trans women in prison overiding concerns about male screws, despite numerous horrific events, are probably bordering on transphobia - trans women are held to a different standard than cis men despite also being the victims of gender based violence.  But I've not seen anyone accused of transphobia merely for questioning the risks of certain situations.  That seems perfectly sensible to me. How those questions are asked, and how any evidence is evaluated, and what conclusions should be drawn is where transphobia may come into play.


----------



## teuchter (Oct 18, 2021)

smokedout said:


> Can you point to some examples on this thread of people being accused of transphobia "if they want to make judgements about people, including their risk of doing certain things, based on their physical anatomy."



Well, the situation described here just for example.


----------



## smokedout (Oct 18, 2021)

teuchter said:


> Well, the situation described here just for example.



Has anyone on this thread accused them of being tranphobic for posting this?  If not then what is the purpose of your posts.  I am not responsible for the views of every other trans person or trans ally.  Sometimes trans people even disagree.


----------



## Sue (Oct 18, 2021)

Just an observation. It sometimes feels a bit like cis men are telling women what they should and shouldn't be doing or accepting and why they're wrong. I suspect it's unwitting but it can put people's backs up, especially as it feels cis men have less skin in the game than cis women and trans folks.


----------



## smokedout (Oct 18, 2021)

Sue said:


> Just an observation. It sometimes feels a bit like cis men are telling women what they should and shouldn't be doing or accepting and why they're wrong. I suspect it's unwitting but it can put people's backs up, especially as it feels cis men have less skin in the game than cis women and trans folks.



I agree with this, and hope you can empathise what it feels like from the trans perspective that this forum contain pages and pages of cis men endlessly debating trans lives and experiences with seemingly little appetite to actually listen to trans people themselves.


----------



## Sue (Oct 18, 2021)

smokedout said:


> I agree with this, and hope you can empathise what it feels like from the trans perspective that this forum contain pages and pages of cis men endlessly debating trans lives and experiences with seemingly little appetite to actually listen to trans people themselves.


I can only imagine.  It's obviously a complex issue and working out how to balance the different rights and risks on all sides is really difficult.

I do think though that most people are intrinsically reasonable and want to do the right thing and with a bit more thought and reasoned discussion on all sides, we could start coming up with solutions for some of these issues. But given women often don't feel like cis men are listening to them about a whole load of stuff, I think cis men butting out a bit while these debates are had would be helpful. (Maybe I'm just a hopeless optimist though...)


----------



## teuchter (Oct 18, 2021)

smokedout said:


> Has anyone on this thread accused them of being tranphobic for posting this?  If not then what is the purpose of your posts.  I am not responsible for the views of every other trans person or trans ally.  Sometimes trans people even disagree.


I am trying to understand what the general view is, on whether it is OK to take someone's physical anatomy (and the history of any changes to it during their life) into account when deciding what they should have access to, or what protections they should be offered. Because sometimes it seems that to some people it's not acceptable at all. Seeing as all sides of this discussion seem prone to making a lot of assumptions about the views of those they disagree with, it would be useful to know if that's really just a fringe view, or not. I don't expect every trans person or trans ally to agree on everything nor do I expect you to speak for them.


----------



## campanula (Oct 18, 2021)

putting whole thread on ignore - shouldn't get pulled into this. I have no animosity towards transwomen or transmen but am just an older woman who is deeply nervous and anxious around men. I hate these conflicts and divisions but I do have a deep visceral anxiety which has followed me throughout my entire adult life, eviscerating vast areas of human experience. Just want to be left alone.


----------



## smokedout (Oct 18, 2021)

teuchter said:


> I am trying to understand what the general view is, on whether it is OK to take someone's physical anatomy (and the history of any changes to it during their life) into account when deciding what they should have access to, or what protections they should be offered. Because sometimes it seems that to some people it's not acceptable at all. Seeing as all sides of this discussion seem prone to making a lot of assumptions about the views of those they disagree with, it would be useful to know if that's really just a fringe view, or not. I don't expect every trans person or trans ally to agree on everything nor do I expect you to speak for them.



Some cis men think trans women are perverted degenerates who should be locked up or murdered.  Seeing as all sides of this discussion seem prone to making a lot of assumptions about the views of those they disagree with, it would be useful to know if that's really just a fringe view, or not.  Do you think trans women should be locked up or murdered?  Aren't you being a hypocrite for not thinking that when some men do think that.  Shouldn't you acknowledge those men in every discussion about this?


----------



## MickiQ (Oct 18, 2021)

smokedout said:


> Some cis men think trans women are perverted degenerates who should be locked up or murdered.  Seeing as all sides of this discussion seem prone to making a lot of assumptions about the views of those they disagree with, it would be useful to know if that's really just a fringe view, or not.  Do you think trans women should be locked up or murdered?  Aren't you being a hypocrite for not thinking that when some men do think that.  Shouldn't you acknowledge those men in every discussion about this?


No I don't see why should I or teuchter acknowledge opinions we don't hold. I personally don't hold that trans women (your term not mine, I don't like it on the grounds I don't consider it accurate) should be locked up or murdered or even laughed at in the street. They're perfectly entitled to go out dressed how they want without fear of violence and if they want to be addressed as Miss rather than Mr or by a 'woman's" name then I'm cool with that too, it's not hurting anyone me least of all.
What I don't think they should do is be allowed into women-only spaces (which are women only for good sound reasons) such as ladies loo's, changing rooms or competitive sports, for exactly the same reason that I'm not either, ie neither of us are women.
I appreciate that this may cause distress to some people and that society should make efforts to do something about it but cold hard biological reality will alway trump gender identity.


----------



## smokedout (Oct 18, 2021)

MickiQ said:


> What I don't think they should do ...



I do not give a flying fuck what you think.


----------



## MickiQ (Oct 18, 2021)

smokedout said:


> I do not give a flying fuck what you think.


Fair enough


----------



## Edie (Oct 18, 2021)

campanula said:


> I couldn't really give a fuck about toilets (because I never use them - at least not public ones) but I do reject the idea that refuges, prisons and various situations such as the right to have a female doctor should be compromised. I have been a victim of physical and sexual violence and my life has been irretrievably damaged so no, I don't give a single fuck for the comforts and convenience of men who retain their social, physical and hormonal size and privilege whatever pronouns they want to use or whatever they call themselves...and fwiw, women do not have 'ladydicks' - the very fact that TERF has been a slur to specifically single out women, (despite 99% of violence towards women and transwomen pertains at the hands of men ) is all the proof I need to see that men's rights still prevail and women's safety is (again) compromised because of men. I guess it's easy to feel safe and liberal when you haven't been on the receiving end of unwanted penises and fists but for me (and my daughter and grand-daughter), I will never again let any man put their hands on me or invade my privacy.


Absolutely all of this. I just refuse to be forced to have to share prisons, hospital wards, or refuges, with men who identify as women. 

I had an over ten year marriage with domestic violence which culminated in him beating my sons face so badly we had a child protection medical and police photographs. HEAR ME when I say I will not be detained with a man, even a man who identifies as a woman.

I have worked as an escort most of the way through my twenties, and have been subject to sexual violence and sex I have not consented to (bareback without consent, shared without consent etc). HEAR ME when I say I do not want to share my toilets or changing rooms with men, I do not want to undress with male bodied people around. 

I am not unusual. One in three women experience domestic violence in their lifetimes and *81 women have been murdered by men* since Sarah Everard was murdered 6 months ago.

If other women are concerned about the rights and protection of trans women, they should campaign for gender neutral provision. And if trans men wish to use male facilities and be detained with men that is their choice, but in my view they will be making themselves very vulnerable and would be better off also campaigning for gender neutral provision. I do not care about the opinion of males.


----------



## smokedout (Oct 18, 2021)

Hi I'm a cis man.  We're the ones who rape and beat up trans women.  And we're the reason cis women need single sex spaces because we rape and beat them up too.  Here's what I think trans people should do.


----------



## smokedout (Oct 18, 2021)

Genuine question Edie, you have been sharing toilets and changing rooms with trans women for your entire life.  How has it affected you so far?


----------



## belboid (Oct 18, 2021)

Edie said:


> Absolutely all of this. I just refuse to be forced to have to share prisons, hospital wards, or refuges, with men who identify as women.
> 
> I had an over ten year marriage with domestic violence which culminated in him beating my sons face so badly we had a child protection medical and police photographs. HEAR ME when I say I will not be detained with a man, even a man who identifies as a woman.


A man other than your son.  Refuges always accept male children and most any male with care needs. All too often they would be damaged young men, following years of abuse.  Other women will be in the same situation. What should happen to their children?


----------



## elbows (Oct 18, 2021)

Sue said:


> I can only imagine.  It's obviously a complex issue and working out how to balance the different rights and risks on all sides is really difficult.
> 
> I do think though that most people are intrinsically reasonable and want to do the right thing and with a bit more thought and reasoned discussion on all sides, we could start coming up with solutions for some of these issues. But given women often don't feel like cis men are listening to them about a whole load of stuff, I think cis men butting out a bit while these debates are had would be helpful. (Maybe I'm just a hopeless optimist though...)


I'm a man who butted out for over two years until recent weeks where I've ended up making a few posts on this thread. I still aim to butt out again once I've given my thoughts on this.

The discussions on u75 about this topic have gone through a number of phases over the years. Things got especially heated during a period when the possibly of increasing trans rights via things life self identification were on the table, especially as some people didnt just have a problem with that idea, but also made it obvious that their opinions about trans people meant they were seeking to undermine existing trans rights too, or at least didnt understand what those existing rights were. There was a lot of hurt and pain on all sides of that debate, and plenty of people on all sides either left these forums completely or ended up feeling like they had little choice but to refuse to discuss the subject anymore publicly on u75.

I didnt ban myself from getting involved in this subject here until quite a long time after that period ended. I felt I had to ban myself because I could not stay calm enough, and the discussions too often turned to whether I was unfairly attacking specific posters who I considered to be transphobes who rarely missed an opportunity to demonstrate their transphobia. I didnt think it was fair to anyone to continue with that once I had been round that circuit too many times already, and I wanted to see if the nature of the discussions improved once I was no longer pouring any fuel onto the flames. My absence may have made a small difference,  but the change was rather insignificant compared to the difference between the especially hurtful phase I described as happening years ago, and what came afterwards. Probably because the largest number of people to stop engaging with these discussions stopped well before me, leading to the most obvious difference in debate intensity quite some time before I finally found the zip for my gob.

It would be better if some meaningful solutions could be found other than the one many resorted to of falling silent. Limits to my ability to find any causes for optimism I might seek on this front include the number who have gone and arent coming back, the failure of solutions to be found where these issues have caused division in other areas of society, and the motives of a proportion of those who provide ongoing momentum for this subject to still be discussed here. Unlike a past period, the discussions these days are not so often driven by topical news events, much has happened in the wider world that goes without comment on these forums, and when such events are mentioned not too many other people join in. Much of the remaining momentum is driven by a small core of people who rarely miss the opportunity to repeat their feelings and opinions on this subject, and those who feel the need to respond when they do. Occasionally it is blatant shit-stirrers that reignite the discussion, or people who werent involved in past iterations of these discussions and start the ball rolling as if we've not been round in these circles many times before.

Even when these debates were at their most hideous in the past, there were brief pauses to the hate, little glimpses of what could unite us or at least stop us being at each others throats. But they werent usually sustainable, and even if large numbers of people had been up to that challenge, the shit-stirrers knew how to get things going again, albeit with an ever decreasing audience.

Also plenty of the fallings out were between women with different stances on these issues. There are specific men whose input to these debates is entirely negative or at least not always positive, but the subject of womens safety and trans rights does not show massive potential for resolution once men are removed from the discussion. Or at least thats what the past taught me, I'd be delighted to see it pan out differently in future.


----------



## teuchter (Oct 18, 2021)

smokedout said:


> Some cis men think trans women are perverted degenerates who should be locked up or murdered.  Seeing as all sides of this discussion seem prone to making a lot of assumptions about the views of those they disagree with, it would be useful to know if that's really just a fringe view, or not.  Do you think trans women should be locked up or murdered?  Aren't you being a hypocrite for not thinking that when some men do think that.  Shouldn't you acknowledge those men in every discussion about this?


Firstly, I don't think I've accused you of being a hypocrite.

Secondly, "trans women are perverted degenerates who should be locked up or murdered" is not a view that would be accepted or entertained in public. Or is it in your experience? I quoted an account by LynnDoyleCooper of something they had witnessed in real life. I hear people I know relating similar things. Those people are sometimes worried about saying the wrong or right thing in a work environment, for example. It appears that there are people whose view is that physical anatomy just shouldn't come into the discussion at all - in almost any scenario - if someone wants to identify as male or female, that should be the end of it. I honestly find it hard to judge the extent to which that view is held amongst those who would describe themselves as supportive of trans rights and I asked you how you saw it. It appears to be a view that is out there, and it doesn't seem fair to compare it to something that is quite obviously an extreme view.


----------



## andysays (Oct 18, 2021)

teuchter said:


> I am trying to understand what the general view is, on whether it is OK to take someone's physical anatomy (and the history of any changes to it during their life) into account when deciding what they should have access to, or what protections they should be offered. Because sometimes it seems that to some people it's not acceptable at all. Seeing as all sides of this discussion seem prone to making a lot of assumptions about the views of those they disagree with, it would be useful to know if that's really just a fringe view, or not. I don't expect every trans person or trans ally to agree on everything nor do I expect you to speak for them.


I don't think there really is a "general view"; I think there is a variety of points of view, a variety of genuine and valid interests which aren't entirely compatible and a variety of what I'll call philosophical approaches. 

And to pick up on your reference to "what they should have access to, or what protections they should be offered", I think those two things are at least potentially different. 

I think, for example, that it's possible to argue that trans women should be afforded every necessary protection from gendered violence and sexual assault, but that they shouldn't automatically have access to compete in women's sports, like in the example you referred to from (I think) LDC.


----------



## maomao (Oct 18, 2021)

Sweet FA said:


> I think I'm now done with threads connected with trans issues; this thread is disgusting and painful to read for many reasons. dylans and his weird cock-waving, changing room fantasy just sends us back to the same hateful shit that was spread all over the other threads.
> 
> My gender precludes me from understanding fully the implications but my experience with trans issues is of dealing with depressed and vulnerable children. I do not recognise the predatory bogeyman who stalks these conversations. Instead I see children with scars all over their minds and bodies. I see them turning to sources on the web which are destructive and harmful but who talk their language and who give them an outlet for their anger and anxiety.
> 
> ...


This absolutely. I'm not a big fan of identity politics and wouldn't demand that you had to be an ethnic minority to post on a thread about racism but my heart sinks every time another middle-aged cis man enters the debate.


----------



## teuchter (Oct 18, 2021)

elbows said:


> I'm a man who butted out for over two years until recent weeks where I've ended up making a few posts on this thread. I still aim to butt out again once I've given my thoughts on this.
> 
> The discussions on u75 about this topic have gone through a number of phases over the years. Things got especially heated during a period when the possibly of increasing trans rights via things life self identification were on the table, especially as some people didnt just have a problem with that idea, but also made it obvious that their opinions about trans people meant they were seeking to undermine existing trans rights too, or at least didnt understand what those existing rights were. There was a lot of hurt and pain on all sides of that debate, and plenty of people on all sides either left these forums completely or ended up feeling like they had little choice but to refuse to discuss the subject anymore publicly on u75.
> 
> ...


3 or 4 years ago, these discussions were going on here, and I mostly avoided them.

What seems different to me now, is that I am hearing about these issues appearing much more as it were in "real life" and I think that's something that has changed. It's not just an argument going on in angry twitter exchanges or discussion forum threads but it's something that people are having to get their heads around in situations they can't simply avoid or stay silent about, because, for example, questions are presenting themselves in work contexts where someone has to try and judge what the right thing to do is.

It's probably not a bad thing that this is now the case - but surely it has to be acknowledged that there are a lot of people who are pretty confused about everything and can't continue to avoid this whole difficult area by never asking any questions because they might unwittingly ask the "wrong" question.


----------



## Monkeygrinder's Organ (Oct 18, 2021)

As another middle aged cis man who has managed to keep out of this debate up to now, and will probably go straight back to that, it seems to me that the other side of the 'it's all cis men going on about this' is the persistent ignoring of any trans-supportive cis women who post on here. There are plenty but it seems no-one has anything to say to them.


----------



## Sue (Oct 18, 2021)

andysays said:


> I don't think there really is a "general view"; I think there is a variety of points of view, a variety of genuine and valid interests which aren't entirely compatible and a variety of what I'll call philosophical approaches.
> 
> And to pick up on your reference to "what they should have access to, or what protections they should be offered", I think those two things are at least potentially different.
> 
> I think, for example, that it's possible to argue that trans women should be afforded every necessary protection from gendered violence and sexual assault, but that they shouldn't automatically have access to compete in women's sports, like in the example you referred to from (I think) LDC.



Exactly. What are the things we can all agree on? For example, I think we can all agree that no-one should be be sexually assaulted or physically attacked whether they're female/male/cis/trans and whether the attacker is female/male/cis/trans.

How do we make sure those who have been assaulted or attacked in the past continue to feel safe in those places they currently do feel safe? How do we make sure that people who haven't got a safe place to be have one or that those who haven't been well protected in the past can be? (Those things could easily apply to both 'sides'.)  Does provision for one lot of people make provision for other people worse or make them feel or actually be less safe? What would those provisions look like? What would make people who don't feel safe actually feel safe?

It's not at all straightforward but dismissing the concerns of either group is completely counterproductive. (And the 'women should just suck it up' thing which has come across on here at times is really, really not helpful.)


----------



## Athos (Oct 18, 2021)

belboid said:


> Refuges always accept male children and most any male with care needs.


This simply isn't true. See, for example, this quote from women's aid:

"_Can I bring my teenage sons with me?
This depends upon the individual refuge. Some allow sons up to the age of 16, while others cannot take boys over the age of 13 or 14. Very few refuges will accept male children up to the age of 18.  Talk to the National Domestic Violence Helpline about other options you may have._"






						What is a refuge and how can I stay in one? - Women’s Aid
					






					www.womensaid.org.uk


----------



## elbows (Oct 18, 2021)

Also I am not going to make


Monkeygrinder's Organ said:


> As another middle aged cis man who has managed to keep out of this debate up to now, and will probably go straight back to that, it seems to me that the other side of the 'it's all cis men going on about this' is the persistent ignoring of any trans-supportive cis women who post on here. There are plenty but it seems no-one has anything to say to them.


Often what happens is one side of the debate pretends they dont exist or are traitors to women. Until some of them get so infuriated by that shit that they speak up to demonstrate that they exist and are not going to let the transphobes piggyback off the discrimination and abuse they face as women to serve a crude transphobic agenda. And then I try to thank them for making their voice and their opposition to transphobia heard. Or at least I did when I wasnt busy trying to keep my gob shut.

edit - Even if this description is a fair reflection, its probably a good example of why I need to try harder to keep out of this debate because of the way I phrase things, and so serves as a reminder to myself of why I need to shut up again right now.


----------



## andysays (Oct 18, 2021)

Sue said:


> Exactly. What are the things we can all agree on? For example, I think we can all agree that no-one should be be sexually assaulted or physically attacked whether they're female/male/cis/trans and whether the attacker is female/male/cis/trans.
> 
> How do we make sure those who have been assaulted or attacked in the past continue to feel safe in those places they currently do feel safe? How do we make sure that people who haven't got a safe place to be have one or that those who haven't been well protected in the past can be? (Those things could easily apply to both 'sides'.)  Does provision for one lot of people make provision for other people worse or make them feel or actually be less safe? What would those provisions look like? What would make people who don't feel safe actually feel safe?
> 
> It's not at all straightforward but dismissing the concerns of either group is completely counterproductive. (And the 'women should just suck it up' thing which has come across on here at times is really, really not helpful.)


All of those issues are things we should be able to agree on, even though we might not agree on how they are best to be achieved.

And nobody should have their concerns dismissed or be expected to "just suck it up". It's a great shame that this has happened on this thread and previously.


----------



## belboid (Oct 18, 2021)

Athos said:


> This simply isn't true. See, for example, this quote from women's aid:
> 
> "_Can I bring my teenage sons with me?
> This depends upon the individual refuge. Some allow sons up to the age of 16, while others cannot take boys over the age of 13 or 14. Very few refuges will accept male children up to the age of 18.  Talk to the National Domestic Violence Helpline about other options you may have._"
> ...


So all refuges accept male children and a significant (at least) accept up to 16. The only thing ‘wrong’ was whether older males with care needs are accommodated by the majority, which isn’t specifically addressed.


----------



## Athos (Oct 18, 2021)

belboid said:


> So all refuges accept male children and a significant (at least) accept up to 16. The only thing ‘wrong’ was whether older males with care needs are accommodated by the majority, which isn’t specifically addressed.


The 'only' thing that was wrong is that you said "refuges always accept male children", whereas, in fact, they *don't* always do so e.g. when those male children are over a certain age.


----------



## belboid (Oct 18, 2021)

Athos said:


> The 'only' thing that was wrong is that you said "refuges always accept male children", whereas, in fact, they *don't* always do so e.g. when those male children are over a certain age.


True, they won’t take thirty years olds, thank you for your amazingly insightful comment.  But you confirm that all refuges accept males, and many do so up to eighteen or beyond.  And it is quite right that they do so.


----------



## Athos (Oct 18, 2021)

belboid said:


> True, they won’t take thirty years olds, thank you for your amazingly insightful comment.  But you confirm that all refuges accept males, and many do so up to eighteen or beyond.  And it is quite right that they do so.


What on earth are you talking about?  Some refuges won't take boys over 13.  Meaning you're claim that "refuges always accept male children" is demonstrably false.

Even if it were true that all refuges accept boys under 13 (which proposition you've yet to prove, by the way), that's not the same thing as "refuges always accept male children."


----------



## smokedout (Oct 18, 2021)

Sue said:


> Exactly. What are the things we can all agree on? For example, I think we can all agree that no-one should be be sexually assaulted or physically attacked whether they're female/male/cis/trans and whether the attacker is female/male/cis/trans.
> 
> How do we make sure those who have been assaulted or attacked in the past continue to feel safe in those places they currently do feel safe? How do we make sure that people who haven't got a safe place to be have one or that those who haven't been well protected in the past can be? (Those things could easily apply to both 'sides'.)  Does provision for one lot of people make provision for other people worse or make them feel or actually be less safe? What would those provisions look like? What would make people who don't feel safe actually feel safe?
> 
> It's not at all straightforward but dismissing the concerns of either group is completely counterproductive. (And the 'women should just suck it up' thing which has come across on here at times is really, really not helpful.)



Agree again.  And I really think that things like a properly funded VAWG sector, with a range of provision, would take a lot of the heat out of ths debate. I'd also support things like changing building regs to ensure all toilets/changing rooms are properly self contained, and that businesses were required to maintain safety, ensure locks work properly, check for hidden cameras etc.  Everyone's walking round with a video camera in their pocket, that's a significant change and a large number of sexual offences committed in those spaces involve voyeurism using cameras.  There are lots of existing pragmatic solutions to a lot of these problems and almost certainly more that could be found through debate taking place in the spirit of solidarity and mutual aid.

I think one of the things preventing that however is that there is a significant minority of influential gender critical activists who are really not interested in solutions.  They are ideologically opposed to the existence of trans people and recognise that whipping up fears about trans women in toilets and refuges is far more useful to that aim then providing any actual solutions or compromises.  There are also people now whose jobs and reputations depend on this debate, the various gender critical organisatons are all desperately trying to secure salaries for themselves, and the likes of Glinner and Posie Parker are having way too much fun to want to see any kind of resolution.  In addition to this the global far right has pretty much unanimously decided to set their sights on trans people, often using gender critical rhetoric as cover and they don't want to see a solution either - well they do, but not one that trans people or women would want.

I think this is where a lot of the tension comes from on the trans side.  At face value the Sex Based Rights Declaration I linked to doesn't look that bad, or at least it just looks like a protection of single sex spaces and not a manifesto for elimination.  But if you read the work of the person who wrote it, or listen to her speak, or know anything about the history of anti-trans feminism then it's immediately apparent that's exactly what it's intended as. And it's difficult, to see people you know who support the idea that the 'practice of transgenderism' should be eliminated being presented as perfectly reasonable people with reasonable views and we should all have a big debate about the talking points they have deliberately seeded into this conflict - with ample help from the conservative right it should be said.  Trans people are really suffering because of this endless debate, and to some that is the purpose of the debate and that's something that rarely seems to be acknowledged.


----------



## andysays (Oct 18, 2021)

The spectacle of two cis blokes arguing about whether women's refuges accept male children or not is just what this thread needs right now...


----------



## Athos (Oct 18, 2021)

andysays said:


> The spectacle of two cis blokes arguing about whether women's refuges accept male children or not is just what this thread needs right now...


Especially when one of them linked to a source that proves they don't always do so, and the other is just desperately trying to save face.


----------



## bimble (Oct 18, 2021)

i've been doing my best for a couple of years now to just keep away from this subject, or at least to not engage with it unless someone else (in real life) wants to talk of it, and i've found that pretty easy and definitely much better for me.

One thing it took me a while to see is that so many people, 'on both sides', come to this conversation carrying such deep wells of pain and anger and fear, from personal histories and past experience, and you're not going to be able to engage in some coolheaded rational way when you feel like you're fighting for your life because you're full of grief and rage and terror, & those also will be the people who can't very easily just choose to leave it alone. Increasingly it just makes me feel very sad, but i am optimistic about things when i zoom right out, I think in a generation or so things will look very different and a lot better.


----------



## belboid (Oct 18, 2021)

andysays said:


> The spectacle of two cis blokes arguing about whether women's refuges accept male children or not is just what this thread needs right now...


for sure, but the fact that all refuges accept children is important to recognise.

"Any woman who has experienced domestic violence – emotional or physical – can go to a refuge, with or without children."
"Over a third of our residents are children" - both from Refuge


----------



## Sue (Oct 18, 2021)

smokedout said:


> Agree again.  And I really think that things like a properly funded VAWG sector, with a range of provision, would take a lot of the heat out of ths debate. I'd also support things like changing building regs to ensure all toilets/changing rooms are properly self contained, and that businesses were required to maintain safety, ensure locks work properly, check for hidden cameras etc.  Everyone's walking round with a video camera in their pocket, that's a significant change and a large number of sexual offences committed in those spaces involve voyeurism using cameras.  There are lots of existing pragmatic solutions to a lot of these problems and almost certainly more that could be found through debate taking place in the spirit of solidarity and mutual aid.
> 
> I think one of the things preventing that however is that there is a significant minority of influential gender critical activists who are really not interested in solutions.  They are ideologically opposed to the existence of trans people and recognise that whipping up fears about trans women in toilets and refuges is far more useful to that aim then providing any actual solutions or compromises.  There are also people now whose jobs and reputations depend on this debate, the various gender critical organisatons are all desperately trying to secure salaries for themselves, and the likes of Glinner and Posie Parker are having way too much fun to want to see any kind of resolution.  In addition to this the global far right has pretty much unanimously decided to set their sights on trans people, often using gender critical rhetoric as cover and they don't want to see a solution either - well they do, but not one that trans people or women would want.
> 
> I think this is where a lot of the tension comes from on the trans side.  At face value the Sex Based Rights Declaration I linked to doesn't look that bad, or at least it just looks like a protection of single sex spaces and not a manifesto for elimination.  But if you read the work of the person who wrote it, or listen to her speak, or know anything about the history of anti-trans feminism then it's immediately apparent that's exactly what it's intended as. And it's difficult, to see people you know who support the idea that the 'practice of transgenderism' should be eliminated being presented as perfectly reasonable people with reasonable views and we should all have a big debate about the talking points they have deliberately seeded into this conflict - with ample help from the conservative right it should be said.  Trans people are really suffering because of this endless debate, and to some that is the purpose of the debate and that's something that rarely seems to be acknowledged.


Absolutely. I think there are definitely people on both 'sides' who are whipping things up and making this whole debate really poisonous. I also think funding things properly would really help.

But then look at the inadequate funding and pressures on things like refuge provision in general. I guess a lot of women are concerned that adding more people into the mix will put even more strain on that provision as funding is unlikely to increase. (And those fears seem very well founded tbh.) But then that obviously means those people who should be in the mix but currently aren't are in a terrible position. 

So we go back to the general principle (which again I think we can all agree on) of 'no-one should experience domestic violence but anyone who does should have somewhere safe to go to'. How that's done and where that funding comes from is where the issue lies I reckon.


----------



## belboid (Oct 18, 2021)

Sue said:


> Absolutely. I think there are definitely people on both 'sides' who are whipping things up and making this whole debate really poisonous. I also think funding things properly would really help.
> 
> But then look at the inadequate funding and pressures on things like refuge provision in general. I guess a lot of women are concerned that adding more people into the mix will put even more strain on that provision as funding is unlikely to increase. (And those fears seem very well founded tbh.) But then that obviously means those people who should be in the mix but currently aren't are in a terrible position.
> 
> So we go back to the general principle (which again I think we can all agree on) of 'no-one should experience domestic violence but anyone who does should have somewhere safe to go to'. How that's done and where that funding comes from is where the issue lies I reckon.


actually funding has increased over the last few years for action against violence against women and girls.  May introduced various statutory provisions to enforce a new domestic abuse protection notice and domestic abuse protection order and placing a new duty on Tier One local authorities to provide support to victims of domestic abuse and their children in refuges and other safe accommodation. There is a lot more emphasis being placed on support other than refuges - because women and children should not have to be forced out of their homes - and services are becoming more centralised (particularly big HA's coming in to provide services that were previously done by local women's aids, refuge, or small local providers), but funding has generally gone up.  None of which is 'unproblematic' but it isn't quite as straightforward as often made out.


----------



## smokedout (Oct 18, 2021)

Sue said:


> Absolutely. I think there are definitely people on both 'sides' who are whipping things up and making this whole debate really poisonous. I also think funding things properly would really help.
> 
> But then look at the inadequate funding and pressures on things like refuge provision in general. I guess a lot of women are concerned that adding more people into the mix will put even more strain on that provision as funding is unlikely to increase. (And those fears seem very well founded tbh.) But then that obviously means those people who should be in the mix but currently aren't are in a terrible position.
> 
> So we go back to the general principle (which again I think we can all agree on) of 'no-one should experience domestic violence but anyone who does should have somewhere safe to go to'. How that's done and where that funding comes from is where the issue lies I reckon.



Yes and it's not just refuge funding that's the problem, it's the entire system.  You could have the best funded refuge system in the world but if there's no social housing for people to move onto, or benefits and wages aren't adequate to meet private rents, then you just have people taking up space in refuges who no longer need or want to be there, but there's nowhere else for them to go.  This is another reason why third spaces are not the panacea that is claimed under current conditions.  I suspect there would be outrage if a trans or queer refuge was given a load of funding at a time when other VAWG services are being cut back.  I think many people would be furious if councils spent a fortune on building additional toilets for trans people when vital services are being stripped to the bone.  Or if special hospital wards were being constructed for trans people at a time when maternity care was being cut.  Or they spent millions building a trans prison at a time when prisoners are locked up 23 hours a day because of a lack of staff.  This debate is not taking place in a vacuum, and even if trans people were minded to campaign for third spaces that would only activate a whole new layer of opposition and antagonism towards us from sections of society who are so far uninvolved in the conflict.


----------



## andysays (Oct 18, 2021)

Athos said:


> Especially when one of them linked to a source that proves they don't always do so, and the other is just desperately trying to save face.





belboid said:


> for sure, but the fact that all refuges accept children is important to recognise.
> 
> "Any woman who has experienced domestic violence – emotional or physical – can go to a refuge, with or without children."
> "Over a third of our residents are children" - both from Refuge


Keep going, boys


----------



## Orang Utan (Oct 18, 2021)




----------



## Sue (Oct 18, 2021)

belboid said:


> actually funding has increased over the last few years for action against violence against women and girls.  May introduced various statutory provisions to enforce a new domestic abuse protection notice and domestic abuse protection order and placing a new duty on Tier One local authorities to provide support to victims of domestic abuse and their children in refuges and other safe accommodation. There is a lot more emphasis being placed on support other than refuges - because women and children should not have to be forced out of their homes - and services are becoming more centralised (particularly big HA's coming in to provide services that were previously done by local women's aids, refuge, or small local providers), but funding has generally gone up.  None of which is 'unproblematic' but it isn't quite as straightforward as often made out.


And of course victims shouldn't be forced out of their homes but unfortunately that's sometimes the best solution at least in the short term.

I also recall purenarcotic talking about HAs providing such services and IIRC there seemed to be some problems with the quality of those services. (purenarcotic, completely understand if you don't want to get embroiled in this thread -- just tagging you as pretty sure this is your area of expertise. :smile.)


----------



## purenarcotic (Oct 18, 2021)

belboid / Sue - there is a huge difference between what is announced etc, and what the reality is. DVPOs have a very poor uptake from the police (and they only last 28 days anyway), Tier 1 for housing is great until you live somewhere with no social housing and huge waiting lists, closing refuges places women at direct risk, it doesn’t keep them safer. It just means more women and children living in hotel rooms. Women shouldn’t have to leave their homes, but the solution isn’t cutting the specialist provision. HAs taking over is also shit. We’re losing experience and quality. It is so, so much more complicated than the headlines. 

I’ve not read this thread for months so I have no idea what going on, I’m just responding to what I’ve been tagged in.


----------



## purenarcotic (Oct 18, 2021)

It is also probably worth noting that quite a lot of women don’t want to be at home. They want somewhere new, safe, unknown to their abuser and without memories. It’s not for us to tell abused women what to do, or what’s best for them. The system should be such that they have a range of good options available to them, regardless of what they want.


----------



## purenarcotic (Oct 18, 2021)

One last point; refuges aren’t just rooms in a safe house. In our refuges we do all sorts, from Halloween nights to Christmas parties, creative sessions, therapeutic gardening, cooking with the kids, 1-1 sessions with the kids… we’ve had kids put on plays for the mums, women take over the display boards to make art (one woman in particular I can think of who made a huge peacock with cut out paper because her abuser didn’t let her do art as it was something she enjoyed), staff help women with the washing up when they’re tired, speak to the benefit services, advocate to social services that they are good parents, sit with a woman who feels suicidal etc. Women arrive to a fully stocked flat with toiletry packs and goody bags for children. Of course some refuges are awful, that’s the nature of anything, but we put a lot of effort into making them as nice a place as possible. Women in hotel rooms don’t get any of that. We try but we simply don’t have those resources to provide that community support. Cutting refuges does nothing for women’s safety or wellbeing. You don’t protect abuse victims by cutting the support services, it’s an arse about face way of looking at it.


----------



## l'Otters (Oct 18, 2021)

ItWillNeverWork said:


> Disabled toilets are gender neutral, and most places have a disabled toilet.


No they don’t


----------



## LDC (Oct 18, 2021)

l'Otters said:


> No they don’t



I wasn't going to respond to that comment, but since you have, ffs suggesting trans people just use disabled toilets.... 

 and


----------



## spanglechick (Oct 18, 2021)

Yes.  Disabled loos are (a)often non-existent (b)sometimes used as storerooms/inaccessible/out of order (c) _for actual disabled people to use_, often because of conditions that make it necessary to use the loo quickly - not after trans people, people with children and people who just didn’t fancy the queue elsewhere have finished.  

Also.  Hey! I’m here.  Trans-inclusive feminist.  Not a unicorn! Really quite a mainstream feminist position! Happy to share the ladies’ loos / changing rooms with trans women.


----------



## Dystopiary (Oct 18, 2021)

Yeah people who routinely let their non-disabled kids use the disabled loos clearly think that their little darlings have a very advanced awareness of hygeine and tidiness. Either that or they just don't give a fuck about disabled people. So many of those places are utterly rank. But if a non-disabled trans person needs to in order to feel safe, that's not really the same, in my opinion, and I'm not going to be pissed of with them about that. Just at the society we live in making trans people feel unsafe, and disabled people treated like dead weight.


----------



## Athos (Oct 18, 2021)

spanglechick said:


> Happy to share the ladies’ loos / changing rooms with trans women.


 Great. How about prison accommodation, secure psychiatric unit, post-rape facilities, domestic violence refuge, or hospital ward?  And with anyone who says they're a trans woman?


----------



## Sweet FA (Oct 18, 2021)

Yeh, what about that eh? EH?

Fucksake.


----------



## Athos (Oct 18, 2021)

Sweet FA said:


> Yeh, what about that eh? EH?
> 
> Fucksake.


It's not some great 'gotcha', rather an interest in her position.  It seems to me that the edge cases I gave are much more contentious than toilets.  We've had a couple of women in the last few pages who wouldn't be described as trans inclusive say that toilets aren't really an issue for them. I'm curious as to what trans inclusive means; whether it's literally a case of treating cis and trans people identically in every situation.


----------



## Miss-Shelf (Oct 18, 2021)

What evidence is there to say that trans women are a particular risk to others in those spaces mentioned above?  

What other policies operate in those spaces that mitigate the risk that any person will harm others in those spaces? 

If risk mitigation policies are not working to reduce risk,  should those policies be changed? 

  What funding and resource issues are operating that prevent risk mitigation from being carried out?


----------



## LDC (Oct 18, 2021)

Miss-Shelf said:


> What evidence is there to say that trans women are a particular risk to others in those spaces mentioned above?
> 
> What other policies operate in those spaces that mitigate the risk that any person will harm others in those spaces?
> 
> ...



Did you see my direct reply to you earlier Miss-Shelf? Be interested to know if you think that was a case of conflicting rights, and if not then what would your compromise/solution be?


----------



## Athos (Oct 18, 2021)

Miss-Shelf said:


> What evidence is there to say that trans women are a particular risk to others in those spaces mentioned above?


Largely anecdotal e.g. the Karen White case.  Personally, I think the evidence points away from it being anything more than highly unlikely (albeit the consequences for a victimised woman could be devastating).



Miss-Shelf said:


> What other policies operate in those spaces that mitigate the risk that any person will harm others in those spaces?


E.g. risk assessments for trans prisoners Smokedout mentioned earlier. (Though, that's an example of treating trans and cis women differently.)



Miss-Shelf said:


> If risk mitigation policies are not working to reduce risk,  should those policies be changed?


Yes.



Miss-Shelf said:


> What funding and resource issues are operating that prevent risk mitigation from being carried out?


Chronic underfunding.


----------



## l'Otters (Oct 18, 2021)

campanula said:


> I couldn't really give a fuck about toilets (because I never use them - at least not public ones) but I do reject the idea that refuges, prisons and various situations such as the right to have a female doctor should be compromised. I have been a victim of physical and sexual violence and my life has been irretrievably damaged so no, I don't give a single fuck for the comforts and convenience of men who retain their social, physical and hormonal size and privilege whatever pronouns they want to use or whatever they call themselves...and fwiw, women do not have 'ladydicks' - the very fact that TERF has been a slur to specifically single out women, (despite 99% of violence towards women and transwomen pertains at the hands of men ) is all the proof I need to see that men's rights still prevail and women's safety is (again) compromised because of men. I guess it's easy to feel safe and liberal when you haven't been on the receiving end of unwanted penises and fists but for me (and my daughter and grand-daughter), I will never again let any man put their hands on me or invade my privacy.


1. There’s plenty of men who are terfs.

2. I’m trans inclusive, feminist, afab, raised “female”, generally read as “female” in day to day life. And have also been a victim of sexual and physical violence at the hands of cis men. I’m not coming at this from some safe liberal place. And I dislike the implication that I must be if I’m trans inclusive / supportive.


----------



## Miss-Shelf (Oct 18, 2021)

LynnDoyleCooper said:


> Did you see my direct reply to you earlier Miss-Shelf? Be interested to know if you think that was a case of conflicting rights, and if not then what would your compromise/solution be?


I did see it and I appreciated your response 
then the thread moved on so I didn't come back to it earlier
I'm not in the sports field in any capacity and don't think I have any useful things to add to how to make meaningful compromises and create solutions 
It seemed like you'd gone about opening up a conversation in a sensitive way and took different people's points of view into consideration when trying to find ways to move forward into being 
Some sports are going to lend themselves to easier ways of including varied bodied people [muscle, frame,  size,   speed] especially those that are not contact sports
I expect that others are much harder to come to accommodations that feel fair and still make sport relevant and exciting and challenging 

 the WHRC definition of sex based rights shared earlier on this thread mentions women's rights to fair play in sport 

I'm not sure where I stand on sports as a right but that's because I have very little interest and involvement in sport


----------



## LDC (Oct 18, 2021)

Miss-Shelf said:


> I did see it and I appreciated your response
> then the thread moved on so I didn't come back to it earlier
> I'm not in the sports field in any capacity and don't think I have any useful things to add to how to make meaningful compromises and create solutions
> It seemed like you'd gone about opening up a conversation in a sensitive way and took different people's points of view into consideration when trying to find ways to move forward into being
> ...



Cheers for the reply, appreciated. Yeah I think there's very few areas of genuine difficulty at accommodating everyone's wishes and needs, but I do think sport is one of those that is tricky and with no easy answers that I've come across.


----------



## l'Otters (Oct 18, 2021)

The framing of “this is about women’s safety vs men’s feelings” is wrong. 
It’s about women’s safety, and women’s safety.


----------



## ginger_syn (Oct 19, 2021)

Athos said:


> It's not some great 'gotcha', rather an interest in her position.  It seems to me that the edge cases I gave are much more contentious than toilets.  We've had a couple of women in the last few pages who wouldn't be described as trans inclusive say that toilets aren't really an issue for them. I'm curious as to what trans inclusive means; whether it's literally a case of treating cis and trans people identically in every situation.


Well for me it treating trans people as people, accepting them as who they are and treating them no differently to anyone else, its not a thought exercise for me,  its people i know, its not about what ifs its about what is. For me anyway.
 I have nothing but disdain for those spewers of internet outrage and contempt for those who treat it as an intellectual point scoring game .


----------



## Athos (Oct 19, 2021)

ginger_syn said:


> Well for me it treating trans people as people, accepting them as who they are and treating them no differently to anyone else, its not a thought exercise for me,  its people i know, its not about what ifs its about what is. For me anyway.
> I have nothing but disdain for those spewers of internet outrage and contempt for those who treat it as an intellectual point scoring game .


I agree that people should be treated compassionately, and, to that end, I'm broadly trans inclusive.  We differ on two points, though.

First, I don't think trans inclusivity requires such absolutism; that only identical treatment is appropriate, and certainly not that anything short of that is bigotry or transphobia. There are a very limited number of situations where differing treatment is justified e.g. to carry out a specific risk assessment before trans women enter female prisons, or when considering a sexual partner. 

Secondly, I don't have contempt for all those who think differently from me.   Whilst some are straight-out bigots and deserve opprobrium, many are vulnerable women whose views are informed by often traumatic events, for whom I have some empathy, even in disagreement.


----------



## Cloo (Oct 19, 2021)

It always seems to come down to 'trans women are women'- for a lot of people, saying anything less is transphobia, but for others the implication that a trans woman must be treated exactly the same as all other women clashes in some scenarios with women's rights. The nearest thing we have to a compromise is 'trans women are women [except in a couple of very specific situations]' but then I can see that undermines the concept of trans women being women. What I don't know is how most trans women feel about this - it's not clear to me whether all/most trans women find that caveats utterly upend any possibility of them being accepted as women and must be fought at every turn, or if many might see it as understandable. Because a lot of the time it seems to be 'allies' rather than trans women themselves making the most noise about this, certainly in terms of attacking anyone who suggests such things.


----------



## Kevbad the Bad (Oct 19, 2021)

A lot of this comes down to trust. Most women don't trust men some/all of the time. With good reason. Not because all men are likely to be violent towards women, but because some are and there's no easy way of telling. So when you see placards saying "I am who I say I am" this rings alarm bells. Because people lie, make mistakes, change their minds, have delusions, misunderstand, hallucinate, are uncertain, pretend.

Eddie Izzard springs to mind. He's atypical, but nonetheless a good example. I used to find him very funny, inventive and brave. Years ago he started wearing makeup, but still publicly talked about having sex with lots of women. Fair enough. Now he says he's female but a lesbian, still retaining all his tackle, mind you. I know he's a self publicist and all that, but should we take him at his word, start calling him 'she', accept that he's a lesbian? If so, why? Because he says so.

Is that really good enough?


----------



## ItWillNeverWork (Oct 19, 2021)

LynnDoyleCooper said:


> I wasn't going to respond to that comment, but since you have, ffs suggesting trans people just use disabled toilets....
> 
> and



Why not? What's wrong with disabled toilets?


----------



## Orang Utan (Oct 19, 2021)

ItWillNeverWork said:


> Why not? What's wrong with disabled toilets?


nothing wrong with them, but they are supposed to be for disabled people. Mind you, my cousin's civil partnership reception was held in a women-only bar that had no men's toilet, so men were invited to use the disabled toilet on that occasion


----------



## ItWillNeverWork (Oct 19, 2021)

Miss-Shelf said:


> What evidence is there to say that trans women are a particular risk to others in those spaces mentioned above?
> 
> What other policies operate in those spaces that mitigate the risk that any person will harm others in those spaces?
> 
> ...



They aren't a risk. It's men pretending to be trans that are a risk.


----------



## ItWillNeverWork (Oct 19, 2021)

Orang Utan said:


> nothing wrong with them, but they are supposed to be for disabled people. Mind you, my cousin's civil partnership reception was held in a women-only bar that had no men's toilet, so men were invited to use the disabled toilet on that occasion



I see what you mean. But from a practical point of view, bar converting all toilets to single-use facilities, how else does this circle get squared? No agreement is possible it seems between the two opposite opnions so re-labeling disabled toilets as single-use gender-neutral toilets seems fairly straight forward. They sometimes have baby-changing facilities built in anyway, so they have multiple purposes already.


----------



## ginger_syn (Oct 19, 2021)

Athos said:


> I agree that people should be treated compassionately, and, to that end, I'm broadly trans inclusive.  We differ on two points, though.
> 
> First, I don't think trans inclusivity requires such absolutism; that only identical treatment is appropriate, and certainly not that anything short of that is bigotry or transphobia. There are a very limited number of situations where differing treatment is justified e.g. to carry out a specific risk assessment before trans women enter female prisons, or when considering a sexual partner.
> 
> Secondly, I don't have contempt for all those who think differently from me.   Whilst some are straight-out bigots and deserve opprobrium, many are vulnerable women whose views are informed by often traumatic events, for whom I have some empathy, even in disagreement.


Good for you ,how many points did that score in your head.


----------



## BristolEcho (Oct 19, 2021)

ItWillNeverWork said:


> I see what you mean. But from a practical point of view, bar converting all toilets to single-use facilities, how else does this circle get squared? No agreement is possible it seems between the two opposite opnions so re-labeling disabled toilets as single-use gender-neutral toilets seems fairly straight forward. They sometimes have baby-changing facilities built in anyway, so they have multiple purposes already.


What do disabled people do then? I do think it's problematic to just say "make them use the disabled toilets" when those spaces are still being fought for now and this causes further problems for them. This has been done in my building and I am fine with it, but it's easy for me as I have other choices.


----------



## ItWillNeverWork (Oct 19, 2021)

BristolEcho said:


> What do disabled people do then? I do think it's problematic to just say "make them use the disabled toilets" when those spaces are still being fought for now and this causes further problems for them. This has been done in my building and I am fine with it, but it's easy for me as I have other choices.



They'd still use them. I'm not proposing we rip out the disabled facilities. Just that we expand our use of that space.


----------



## HoratioCuthbert (Oct 19, 2021)

Kevbad the Bad said:


> A lot of this comes down to trust. Most women don't trust men some/all of the time. With good reason. Not because all men are likely to be violent towards women, but because some are and there's no easy way of telling. So when you see placards saying "I am who I say I am" this rings alarm bells. Because people lie, make mistakes, change their minds, have delusions, misunderstand, hallucinate, are uncertain, pretend.



Misinterpret, project, become unconscious, mishear, mistake, become confused, can't spell, are fickle, feel faint, are overcome with emotion, have strange dreams, are unreliable narrators...


----------



## Athos (Oct 19, 2021)

ginger_syn said:


> Good for you ,how many points did that score in your head.


All the points. I just won the internet.


----------



## bimble (Oct 19, 2021)

'I am who I say I am' did strike me as a strange choice for a slogan. I think it's amnesty international who made those placards.


----------



## Cloo (Oct 19, 2021)

Kevbad the Bad said:


> A lot of this comes down to trust. Most women don't trust men some/all of the time. With good reason. Not because all men are likely to be violent towards women, but because some are and there's no easy way of telling. So when you see placards saying "I am who I say I am" this rings alarm bells. Because people lie, make mistakes, change their minds, have delusions, misunderstand, hallucinate, are uncertain, pretend.


One thing that really struck me is seeing abuse-survivor friend writing about how she has spent her life not knowing which men are 'safe', even to the point of being scared when on her own in a rural bus because she worries the driver could stop the bus and attack her. And now she doesn't get to say who is a man and that's frightening for her. This is not because she is a raving transphobe, it's because she is scared of men and this is the problem for trans women and all women - male violence and sexual violence. Not women being nasty.


----------



## Edie (Oct 19, 2021)

‘I am who I say I am’ is a total load of bullshit anyway. Individualist nonsense. We are all defined by many many things, most completely beyond our control, and almost never ‘because we say so’. Utter tripe. The end point of this identity fantasy. Ironic that the left are destroying society and community far quicker than the right ever did. Your fucking eating yourselves.


----------



## LDC (Oct 19, 2021)

ItWillNeverWork said:


> Why not? What's wrong with disabled toilets?



Nothing is wrong with them. But they're limited and for people that have conditions that mean they need different/extra facilities.

And that's even leaving aside the weirdness of telling trans people to use a facility for disabled people cos, well... _'they're a bit like them' _or something.


----------



## Knotted (Oct 19, 2021)

I think it's just a call to be taken seriously.


----------



## LDC (Oct 19, 2021)

Edie said:


> ‘I am who I say I am’ is a total load of bullshit anyway. Individualist nonsense. We are all defined by many many things, most completely beyond our control, and almost never ‘because we say so’.



I mostly agree with the individualist stuff (and do think there's a connection to identity politics and the death of much widespread collective political struggle) but I think it gets more complex as it's not _just _individuals, the external stuff you mention is also changing (as demands from individuals have an impact) and society and culture is shifting about in how it defines female and woman, that's what much of this argument is about - if it was _just_ individuals saying something it'd be much simpler.


----------



## ItWillNeverWork (Oct 19, 2021)

LynnDoyleCooper said:


> Nothing is wrong with them. But they're limited and for people that have conditions that mean they need different/extra facilities.
> 
> And that's even leaving aside the weirdness of telling trans people to use a facility for disabled people cos, well... _'they're a bit like them' _or something.



The first point I understand. It imposes on disabled people for more people to be utilising those services. I get you.

But your second point seems to imply there is something wrong with being disabled, as if trans people are being insulted by having to share facilities with them. I known that's not what you intened, but it feels a bit like that.


----------



## Orang Utan (Oct 19, 2021)

Edie said:


> ‘I am who I say I am’ is a total load of bullshit anyway. Individualist nonsense. We are all defined by many many things, most completely beyond our control, and almost never ‘because we say so’. Utter tripe. The end point of this identity fantasy. Ironic that the left are destroying society and community far quicker than the right ever did. Your fucking eating yourselves.


This is the attitude that has caused long term posters here to depart


----------



## HoratioCuthbert (Oct 19, 2021)

Edie said:


> ‘I am who I say I am’ is a total load of bullshit anyway. Individualist nonsense. We are all defined by many many things, most completely beyond our control, and almost never ‘because we say so’. Utter tripe. The end point of this identity fantasy. Ironic that the left are destroying society and community far quicker than the right ever did. Your fucking eating yourselves.


I'm not sure who this post is aimed at, as anyone commenting on the placard at this point had said it was a shit placard.
It is possible to be trans or trans inclusive and not subscribe to identity politics. I don't, which is why I don't respond to posts on here with "you are a cis man, fuck off" for example- this is common issue with idpol that makes discussion impossible after a while. (I notice you  do this a lot, FWIW.)

I can't speak for smokedout but their politics doesn't come across that way to me either. I also recall a discussion years ago in the community forums where a few trans posters were saying that a whole load of these terms were being used interchangeably and that they didn't feel a lot of what was being said accurately described their politics or positions either (i hope that is vague enough as to not step over the line, please tell me if not urban)

I would agree that what I would describe as identity politics is certainly proving to be quite destructive within the left. But it seems to me most posting here are above that.


ETA: I'm not entirely comfortable with using the phrase "identity politics" either by the way, given how often the phrase is used by folk to shout down any anti-racist, feminist, pro LGBT.... etc stuff....


----------



## HoratioCuthbert (Oct 19, 2021)

*obvs "you are a cis man, fuck off" not a direct quote


----------



## ginger_syn (Oct 19, 2021)

ItWillNeverWork said:


> The first point I understand. It imposes on disabled people for more people to be utilising those services. I get you.
> 
> But your second point seems to imply there is something wrong with being disabled, as if trans people are being insulted by having to share facilities with them. I known that's not what you intened, but it feels a bit like that.


Perhaps its more a trans person would feel uncomfortable using the disabled toilets the same way any reasonable abled bodied person would, i know I feel uncomfortable using disabled toilets while i can still manage to get into a standard cubicle, even though  I have issues with mobility.


----------



## elbows (Oct 19, 2021)

Edie said:


> ‘I am who I say I am’ is a total load of bullshit anyway. Individualist nonsense. We are all defined by many many things, most completely beyond our control, and almost never ‘because we say so’. Utter tripe. The end point of this identity fantasy. Ironic that the left are destroying society and community far quicker than the right ever did. Your fucking eating yourselves.



Well you would say that because your right-leaning instincts and ignorance makes you just the sort of tool that gets weaponised in the 'culture wars'.

For over two years I kept out of this topic, in large part because I found it almost impossible not to have a go at you and your transphobia. But it seems real hard for me to keep quiet at the moment when faced with you wanting to have your cake and eat it via bullshit claims that you will defend trans peoples rights. With rights defenders like you who needs enemies? The only thing you end up defending is your right to lean to the right.


----------



## Sue (Oct 19, 2021)

elbows said:


> Well you would say that because your right-leaning instincts and ignorance makes you just the sort of tool that gets weaponised in the 'culture wars'.
> 
> For over two years I kept out of this topic, in large part because I found it almost impossible not to have a go at you and your transphobia. But it seems real hard for me to keep quiet at the moment when faced with you wanting to have your cake and eat it via bullshit claims that you will defend trans peoples rights. With rights defenders like you who needs enemies? The only thing you end up defending is your right to lean to the right.


I'm not sure how helpful this is, elbows. Edie has explained on here the physical and sexual violence she's experienced at the hands of men and why she's worried about the potential consequences of self-identification as they affect refuges etc.

Whether those fears are justified in this context or not, I have no idea but those fears certainly exist for quite a lot of women (and I'm guessing those who've experienced that violence in the past are the most worried about it). Back to the skin in the game thing, eh?

Eta If you're trans fair enough. But keeping in mind how scared some women genuinely are is probably a good idea whatever.


----------



## smokedout (Oct 19, 2021)

Cloo said:


> It always seems to come down to 'trans women are women'- for a lot of people, saying anything less is transphobia, but for others the implication that a trans woman must be treated exactly the same as all other women clashes in some scenarios with women's rights. The nearest thing we have to a compromise is 'trans women are women [except in a couple of very specific situations]' but then I can see that undermines the concept of trans women being women. What I don't know is how most trans women feel about this - it's not clear to me whether all/most trans women find that caveats utterly upend any possibility of them being accepted as women and must be fought at every turn, or if many might see it as understandable. Because a lot of the time it seems to be 'allies' rather than trans women themselves making the most noise about this, certainly in terms of attacking anyone who suggests such things.



There was a daft thread on trans twitter recently asking what would you do if there were no cis people in the world for a day.  It attracted a lot of responses, probably over 100, and nearly every single one was go swimming (God know why, I've always hated going swimming).  Lots of trans people won't use public toilets and plan any kind of outing around knowing they won't be able to go to the loo.  This is in part because people are scared, or have had bad experiences in the past but also because most trans people don't actually want to make people feel uncomfortable, they just want to use the toilet or try on some clothes and get out of there as soon as possible.  And whether trans people do use single sex spaces generally comes down to how well they 'pass', as in do they meet the standards of masculinity or femininity that makes them acceptable to cis people.

There are certainly a few younger trans people (and no doubt older) who've decided fuck that, but for the vast majority it's all about a bit of common sense.  I've seen very few trans people object to the hormone requirements in professional sports for example, I doubt there's many trans people pre-surgery who would use a space which involved communal nudity, and there's not many of them in the UK anyway, I'm certainly not aware of any reports of that happening here.  I think there's a growing sense at least amongst more radical trans people that throwing everything behind trans women are women was probably not a great strategy that just trapped us in endless semantic arguments when we should have been talking about trans liberation - that is access to housing, places of safety, employment and most importantly of all an adequate trans healthcare system.  In other words the things that trans people need to be able to both function and thrive within society on the same terms as everyone else.  The gender criticals are just one of many obstacles to trans lives, the appalling state of healthcare for trans people, discrimination in housing and employment, male sexual and physical violence, are all arguably far greater barriers to trans participation than the gender critical movement - although all these problems would become significantly worse were the gender criticals to achieve their aims.

Trans people don't want this row.  Unlike the mumsnetters and glinners of the world we are not approaching this with obsessive glee.  A significant number of trans people are making plans to leave the country.  It's founded on a completely  dishonest premise that self ID, which is off the table anyway and few trans peple gave that much of a shit about, was about access to single sex spaces and that this was something new and dangerous when in reality it really just was just about being able to change your birth certificate.  Trans people have been using single sex spaces for decades, on a self ID basis, with a bit of common sense and without incident, and are now being told no, that's not true, trans people must be imagining what toilets they've used for most of their life and this thing that has always happened is suddenly intolerably dangerous.  That's a pretty shit and offensive position to take, and whilst I don't like the way the term gaslighting is now commonly used it's the perfect example of what it has come to mean.  And this probably has polarised some trans people, it's made a lot of people angry and understandably afraid, but what I have noticed is that as trans people have moved closer to compromise the gender critical demands have grown ever more extreme because many of them will now not be happy until trans people cease to exist at least as a visible social phenomena.


----------



## 8ball (Oct 19, 2021)

ginger_syn said:


> Perhaps its more a trans person would feel uncomfortable using the disabled toilets the same way any reasonable abled bodied person would, i know I feel uncomfortable using disabled toilets while i can still manage to get into a standard cubicle, even though  I have issues with mobility.



I think also it can maybe feel like the "mainstream world" saying "we've already shelled out a load of cash for some people who don't fit our categories, so let's get the max bang for our buck", rather than wanting to spend too much time mulling things over.

This is how they changed our disabled loo's sign at work recently.  I can see the sentiment, but most of "everyone" already has a whole bunch of loos they can use right next to this one, so I'd sooner it was a bit different esp. the bottom line.



edit:  but mostly, great post smokedout


----------



## Raheem (Oct 19, 2021)

ItWillNeverWork said:


> from a practical point of view, bar converting all toilets to single-use facilities, how else does this circle get squared? No agreement is possible it seems between the two opposite opnions so re-labeling disabled toilets as single-use gender-neutral toilets seems fairly straight forward.


It's worth taking a step backwards and noticing that the rights of trans people, at a basic level, to things like public toilets, changing rooms and women's refuges are not actually a subject of live public debate. The law is settled, most of the public support it, it's nearly always complied with and it is has, on it's own terms, worked just fine. There are not two equally valid opposing viewpoints needing to be reconciled, and no square to be circled. A very large part of the discussion here is just about disapproving of the modern world or not.


----------



## Cloo (Oct 19, 2021)

Thanks smokedout - this is why I don't have a problem with trans women in changing rooms as I'm sure most wouldn't feel comfortable using open changing anyway.  And I've never got the loos thing, as they are all cubicles and that's sufficiently private as far as I'm concerned. And the result of all this crap is that trans women and cis women who happen to be tall/look a bit androgynous are now getting shit in these spaces as well. 

People are very keen on 'nutpicking' and finding the odd extreme outliers on either side to try to prove their points, but as trans friends have said, they are just trying to live their lives, not everything they do is a political statement.


----------



## elbows (Oct 19, 2021)

Sue said:


> I'm not sure how helpful this is, elbows. Edie has explained on here the physical and sexual violence she's experienced at the hands of men and why she's worried about the potential consequences of self-identification as they affect refuges etc.
> 
> Whether those fears are justified in this context or not, I have no idea but those fears certainly exist for quite a lot of women (and I'm guessing those who've experienced that violence in the past are the most worried about it). Back to the skin in the game thing, eh?


Those aspects are real enough but when people make references to the culture wars and make clear which side of that they are on, it seems weird to ignore it. Especially when it emerges in the form of claims such as 'the left are destroying society', why would we ever expect such claims to go unchallenged on u75?

Because lets face it, a significant chunk of what has poisoned the well in regards these issues in recent years is the framing of many aspects of social change and resistance to that change as being a culture war. It is a trap that all sides can easily find themselves in, including me. In some ways its just a modern reboot of earlier decades attempts by the right to characterise their opponents as 'the loony left'. But its also been fuelled by identity politics and certain extremes and dead ends that result.

Possibly a solution is to utterly reject the entire framing of things as being 'a culture war'. Because the right are having a great time framing everything in that way, and the left easily get sucked in.

How that shit can be bypassed on u75 and everywhere else is a challenge we clearly havent found the answers too yet. It seems unlikely that I have magic answers, and so I will still try to heavily limit my input on threads like this one. I would be very happy if others can come up with a cunning plan on this front.


----------



## Sue (Oct 19, 2021)

elbows said:


> Those aspects are real enough but when people make references to the culture wars and make clear which side of that they are on, it seems weird to ignore it.
> 
> Because lets face it, a significant chunk of what has poisoned the well in regards these issues in recent years is the framing of many aspects of social change and resistance to that change as being a culture war. It is a trap that all sides can easily find themselves in, including me. In some ways its just a modern reboot of earlier decades attempts by the right to characterise their opponents as 'the loony left'. But its also been fuelled by identity politics and certain extremes and dead ends that result.
> 
> ...


Sure so let's not use the term 'culture war". Tbh I don't think it's a term I've ever used as its meaning is so unclear/imprecise.


----------



## smokedout (Oct 19, 2021)

Edie said:


> ‘I am who I say I am’ is a total load of bullshit anyway. Individualist nonsense. We are all defined by many many things, most completely beyond our control, and almost never ‘because we say so’. Utter tripe. The end point of this identity fantasy. Ironic that the left are destroying society and community far quicker than the right ever did. Your fucking eating yourselves.



Are you going to answer my question Edie 

I ask because on the earlier thread about this you said


> I have absolutely no doubt that the majority of trans women are men _who genuinely feel like_ women. Who would benefit psychologically and socially from living being accepted as a woman. And there are intersex people who are chromosomally or phenotypically more female than male, and in my view they quite simply _are women_.
> And these people have rights and needs that absolutely need to be met. They deserve to live with dignity, and without violence. And if that means treating them as women socially then that is what I would do. Share my swimming pool changing room, come into the female toilets. Just come in with some mindfulness that some women might be afraid, and that you still have many of the sex based privileges that men have always had.



So I'm wondering what's changed and why this is now a hard line.  Has something happened to you in a changing room or toilet concerning a trans person that has made you change your mind?  Obviously you don't have to tell me, and that's understandable if it was something traumatic but I am genuinely curious why something that didn't seem to be a problem for you a couple of years ago is an now absolutely intolerable danger.


----------



## elbows (Oct 19, 2021)

Sue said:


> Sure so let's not use the term 'culture war". Tbh I don't think it's a term I've ever used as its meaning is so unclear/imprecise.


Its true that I usually avoid the term myself, but there seem to be occasions where I need to point out when angles are very much a part of that framing. I added a bit to my post to make it clear that my post was sponsored by Edies comments about how the left were destroying society faster than the right, which is classic culture war shite in my book.


----------



## Edie (Oct 19, 2021)

elbows said:


> Well you would say that because your right-leaning instincts and ignorance makes you just the sort of tool that gets weaponised in the 'culture wars'.
> 
> For over two years I kept out of this topic, in large part because I found it almost impossible not to have a go at you and your transphobia. But it seems real hard for me to keep quiet at the moment when faced with you wanting to have your cake and eat it via bullshit claims that you will defend trans peoples rights. With rights defenders like you who needs enemies? The only thing you end up defending is your right to lean to the right.


You’ve said literally nothing with this post except some vague hand waving about how you don’t like me. I don’t give a fuck. 

Name something I’ve said that’s trans phobic and actually construct an argument instead of this grandstanding.


----------



## elbows (Oct 19, 2021)

But you always try to boil my criticisms down to the idea that Im just saying I dont like you, and that really isnt the case.

You brought up the right and the left, you claimed the left were destroying society faster than the right. Given the subject of this thread, it seems you are suggesting that certain positions being taken by some on the left in terms of trans rights are one of their destructive forces. If that is not your claim, why are you saying it on this thread?


----------



## LDC (Oct 19, 2021)

I think (and I'm happy to be shot down in flames with better arguments and corrections) that there's stuff going on with this debate that's to do with online radicalisation, as has been discussed in other contexts.

In the last 3-4 years I've seen a few people I know go from having genuine questions and concerns to being told they're akin to fascists and then joining Twitter (and similar) and increasingly plunging into a world of hate, horrendous behaviour, and horrible shit said to each other online. And I think it for sure works both ways (and smokedout has hinted as such I think) but my own experience of it has been seeing anarchist and left wing women see things like that placard at a demo that was posted earlier, be subject to violent and misogynist threats online from (assuming) young trans people and/or their allies, and feel (and sometimes are) attacked and excluded from spaces they've been comfortable in for sometimes decades by people they thought were comrades. And some are now keeping _any_ feelings or questions on this issue to themselves or a few trusted friends lest they be attacked and excluded as well.

Probably one of my most depressing political moments ever was watching a young huge 6ft transwoman scream "You ugly TERF cunt." right in the face of a small feminist probably in her 60s a few years ago. I mean how is it even possible to move on with this when there are small circles of people behaving and treating each other like that online and sometimes in person?

TL;DR, blow up the internet and be nice to each other please.


----------



## bimble (Oct 19, 2021)

smokedout said:


> I think there's a growing sense at least amongst more radical trans people that throwing everything behind trans women are women was probably not a great strategy that just trapped us in endless semantic arguments when we should have been talking about trans liberation - that is access to housing, places of safety, employment and most importantly of all an adequate trans healthcare system.  In other words the things that trans people need to be able to both function and thrive within society on the same terms as everyone else.


That is really interesting & makes sense.


----------



## Riklet (Oct 19, 2021)

Kevbad the Bad said:


> A lot of this comes down to trust. Most women don't trust men some/all of the time. With good reason. Not because all men are likely to be violent towards women, but because some are and there's no easy way of telling. So when you see placards saying "I am who I say I am" this rings alarm bells. Because people lie, make mistakes, change their minds, have delusions, misunderstand, hallucinate, are uncertain, pretend.
> 
> Eddie Izzard springs to mind. He's atypical, but nonetheless a good example. I used to find him very funny, inventive and brave. Years ago he started wearing makeup, but still publicly talked about having sex with lots of women. Fair enough. Now he says he's female but a lesbian, still retaining all his tackle, mind you. I know he's a self publicist and all that, but should we take him at his word, start calling him 'she', accept that he's a lesbian? If so, why? Because he says so.
> 
> Is that really good enough?



It is a good example.

Eddie Izzard isn't for me a woman in the same way as someone born as a woman and raised as a woman is. No matter what they say or do. I'm sure this is hideously offensive and un PC but that's just how I feel. I totally empathise with women who are a bit unsure about unquestioning acceptance and even praise of self identification.

What I'm not clear on is where kindness fits in. Id like to think id always try and treat people with kindness and vulnerable people even more so. I don't see this happening with the whole trans debate or gender critical feminist behaviour and arguments. I see more selfishness and "defending our tribe" than reaching out and trying your best even in difficult and confusing situations.  I'd like to think that people's instinctive views about someone's biology arent as important as how we engage towards others and learn from their experiences. Aren't as important as behaviour, basically. The hope is to reconcile thoughts and feelings with behaviour... I definitely try to anyway.

Getting drawn into the whole "do women have a cervix or not" rubbish just makes it harder to achieve this IMO.


----------



## teuchter (Oct 19, 2021)

elbows said:


> But you always try to boil my criticisms down to the idea that Im just saying I dont like you, and that really isnt the case.
> 
> You brought up the right and the left, you claimed the left were destroying society faster than the right. Given the subject of this thread, it seems you are suggesting that certain positions being taken by some on the left in terms of trans rights are one of their destructive forces. If that is not your claim, why are you saying it on this thread?


I have not seen Edie post anything that I would call transphobic. I think if you are going to accuse her of that you have to back it up.


----------



## elbows (Oct 19, 2021)

LynnDoyleCooper said:


> I think (and I'm happy to be shot down in flames with better arguments and corrections) that there's stuff going on with this debate that's to do with online radicalisation, as has been discussed in other contexts.
> 
> In the last 3-4 years I've seen a few people I know go from having genuine questions and concerns to being told they're akin to fascists and then joining Twitter (and similar) and increasingly plunging into a world of hate, horrendous behaviour, and horrible shit said to each other online. And I think it for sure works both ways (and smokedout has hinted as such I think) but my own experience of it has been seeing anarchist and left wing women see things like that placard at a demo that was posted earlier, be subject to violent and misogynist threats online from (assuming) young trans people and/or their allies, and feel (and sometimes are) attacked and excluded from spaces they've been comfortable in for sometimes decades by people they thought were comrades. And some are now keeping _any_ feelings or questions on this issue to themselves or a few trusted friends lest they be attacked and excluded as well.
> 
> Probably one of my most depressing political moments ever was watching a young huge 6ft transwoman scream "You ugly TERF cunt." right in the face of a small feminist probably in her 60s a few years ago. I mean how is it even possible to move on with this when there are small circles of people behaving and treating each other like that online and sometimes in person?



Massive attention towards such aspects on both sides was certainly a feature of the worst/most intense threads on trans issues some years back on u75.

Its one of the more overt signs of polarisation, and even when we try to bring it up and discuss it sensibly the polarisation ends up manifesting itself in such discussions. People often feel the need to bring up examples of the same sort of stuff from the other side, especially when graphic examples from a particular poster only cover one side. For example even as I type this reply, I feel the need to mention how during the same period, when I made the mistake of paying attention to vidoes of various demos, some on the trans-exclusionary side of one demo confrontation were saying things like 'theres the bulge'. And then the polarisation here becomes cemented when people get upset with perceived failures of people on the other side to properly condemn stuff that should be easy to condemn. Even if lots of people do the right thing and make sensible concessions, it only takes a few to keep the fully polarised shit going as if there had been no attempts by anyone at bridging the divide and taking the worst heat out of the equation.

Plus some will question the extent to which concessions and depolarisation should actually be attempted, especially if they hark back to previous struggles such as those against racism, where the goal seemed achievable by picking a side and sticking to our guns. Nuances were deemed unnecessary on some fronts of some of those struggles, but I'm not sure that works so well when the issues are more complex and people can find a range of reasonable-sounding justifications to hide their bigotry behind.


----------



## elbows (Oct 19, 2021)

teuchter said:


> I have not seen Edie post anything that I would call transphobic. I think if you are going to accuse her of that you have to back it up.


The problem is that my opinion on that is based on a lots of posts over many years, and if I attempt to go through all that history and forensically pick it apart then I will be accused of having some weird obsession. Thats part of what happened last time that lead me to ban myself from the topic for several years. As opposed to the reality that its just an opinion that was formed slowly over a long period of time in the past by reading and engaging with threads in a normal way. An opinion that gets an instant refresh whenever fresh material comes up now. A phenomenon that many people experience in regards various other u75 posters that they have known and argued with about particular topics over many years.

But I will now make reference to one phenomenon from recent days in this thread. It will not offer anything close to water tight evidence, but it will hopefully provide some indication of where I am coming from.

If I made a post where I claimed I support trans rights, but everything else I said in that post and in other posts undermined those rights and made it clear how much lower a priority I considered those rights to be compared to a load of other stuff, I would expect to be called out for it. It ends up being very similar to 'im not a racist but but but' and its always driven me completely mad that when it comes to transphobia, many people dont recognise the parallels.


----------



## Edie (Oct 19, 2021)

elbows said:


> The problem is that my opinion on that is based on a lots of posts over many years, and if I attempt to go through all that history and forensically pick it apart then I will be accused of having some weird obsession. As opposed to the reality that its just an opinion that was formed slowly over a long period of time in the past by reading and engaging with threads in a normal way. An opinion that gets an instant refresh whenever fresh material comes up now. A phenomenon that many people experience in regards various other u7 posters that they have known and argued with about particular topics over many years.
> 
> But I will now make reference to one phenomenon from recent days in this thread. It will not offer anything close to water tight evidence, but it will hopefully provide some indication of where I am coming from.
> 
> If I made a post where I claimed I support trans rights, but everything else I said in that post and in other posts undermined those rights and made it clear how much lower a priority those rights were than a load of other stuff, I would expect to be called out for it.


Mealy mouthed bullshit.


----------



## Sue (Oct 19, 2021)

Riklet said:


> I see more selfishness and "defending our tribe" than reaching out and trying your best even in difficult and confusing situations.  I'd like to think that people's instinctive views about someone's biology arent as important as how we engage towards others and learn from their experiences. Aren't as important as behaviour, basically. The hope is to reconcile thoughts and feelings with behaviour...


I think dismissing some women's fears for their safety like this isn't very helpful either.


----------



## Riklet (Oct 19, 2021)

Sue said:


> I think dismissing some women's fears for their safety like this isn't very helpful either.



I hope I havent dismissed that. Thats not what I meant to do. But think theres a big difference between some women's fears for their safety and organised radical feminist groups that seem determined to provoke and attack trans men and the various groups theyre involved with. Sure some of the trans activists have been just as bad perhaps but there's some pretty horrendous bahaviour online especially which doesn't seem much like a genuine discussion or raising of concern.


----------



## smokedout (Oct 19, 2021)

LynnDoyleCooper said:


> I think (and I'm happy to be shot down in flames with better arguments and corrections) that there's stuff going on with this debate that's to do with online radicalisation, as has been discussed in other contexts.
> 
> In the last 3-4 years I've seen a few people I know go from having genuine questions and concerns to being told they're akin to fascists and then joining Twitter (and similar) and increasingly plunging into a world of hate, horrendous behaviour, and horrible shit said to each other online. And I think it for sure works both ways (and smokedout has hinted as such I think) but my own experience of it has been seeing anarchist and left wing women see things like that placard at a demo that was posted earlier, be subject to violent and misogynist threats online from (assuming) young trans people and/or their allies, and feel (and sometimes are) attacked and excluded from spaces they've been comfortable in for sometimes decades by people they thought were comrades. And some are now keeping _any_ feelings or questions on this issue to themselves or a few trusted friends lest they be attacked and excluded as well.
> 
> ...


I think it's undeniable that some of the behaviour of usually younger trans activists (and often allies) has been less than helpful and that misogyny, transphobia, and homophobia has played a part on all sides - the way Glinner treated women who disagreed with him on twitter was equally problematic.  And these are powerful social forces which few movements if any are immune from.

But there is another dynamic within this which probably a lot of people weren't aware of.  The original terfs, who were mostly US based although not exclusively, had been waging war on trans people for decades.  Blogs like twansphobic were outing trans people and mocking them - ordinary trans people not activists - for years before this row broke out.  In the 70s' lesbian feminist group The Gorgans turned up with guns in an attempt to intimidate a trans women and more than one person was physically attacked.  In the UK, the lesbian sex wars as they became known sought to expel trans people from the growing LGB movement.  People like Cathy Brennan and Janice Raymond played an active role in attempting to suppress trans healthcare in the US, with some success.  The reason trans activists started wearing masks was because they were frequently outed by rad fem blogs (as they called themselves back then) and humiliated online.  In this context the idea to host Julia Long as the main speaker at the Hyde Park event which really sparked this conflict on the left was a massive provocation, a bit like claiming you have reasonable concerns about immigration then booking Nick Griffen to be your main speaker.  Long is one of the most notorous transphobic rad fems in the UK and has been equally hostile to sex workers - as have many others within her orbit.  This very small tradition within radical feminism is openly trans eliminist, proud of it in fact, and has caused real harm to trans people over the years.

This is where the the initial resistance to terfs came from.  The problem is a lot of people walked right into the middle of that, with what probably were genuinely reasonable concerns or questions, and had likely never even heard of Julia Long and Sheila Jeffreys and the rest, but became unwittingly associated with them.  The nature of online debate only excerbated these tensions but what sparked it could probably be best described as a fuck up* - in that some people on the left became unknowingly associated with deeply transphobic individuals and others responded to that in a completely over the top way because they assumed that some curious random who went to a meeting was part of the same current as Long, Jeffreys, Brennan etc.

*although if you look back at the meetings being held by Sheila Jeffreys and others around 2013/14 I'd argue it was a loosely planned fuck up.  And then the right wing press decided to join in, whilst the far and religious right also jumped on the bandwagon further inflaming tensions.


----------



## elbows (Oct 19, 2021)

Edie said:


> Mealy mouthed bullshit.


I'm open to suggestions if you have any in regards detail and angles you'd like to discuss further.

I'd certainly say the subject gets messy in part because many of us may face some internal contradictions or difficulties in finding the right balance. Do you find yourself struggling with that at all? Do you end up framing things as competing rights and then not have much trouble working out which of those takes priority as far as you are concerned? Have you considered the possibility that a potential solution is not to view things through the prism of competing rights?


----------



## teuchter (Oct 19, 2021)

elbows said:


> If I made a post where I claimed I support trans rights, but everything else I said in that post and in other posts undermined those rights and made it clear how much lower a priority I considered those rights to be compared to a load of other stuff, I would expect to be called out for it. It ends up being very similar to 'im not a racist but but but' and its always driven me completely mad that when it comes to transphobia, many people dont recognise the parallels.


What were the rights that were undermined and how were they undermined?

Also, having an opinion that one thing is more important than another thing, doesn't mean that you consider the other thing to be unimportant.


----------



## Sue (Oct 19, 2021)

elbows said:


> I'm open to suggestions if you have any in regards detail and angles you'd like to discuss further.
> 
> I'd certainly say the subject gets messy in part because many of us may face some internal contradictions or difficulties in finding the right balance. Do you find yourself struggling with that at all? Do you end up framing things as competing rights and then not have much trouble working out which of those takes priority as far as you are concerned? Have you considered the possibility that a potential solution is not to view things through the prism of competing rights?


I think unfortunately some of these things may well come down to competing rights, if only due to financial constraints.

So if trans people use the disabled loo if there is one, what about disabled folk wanting to access the toilet? If trans women use the women's loos, what about women who feel unsafe with this? If trans women use the men's loos, trans women would likely feel unsafe with that. And trans folk presumably just want to use a loo without it being a battleground.

Gender-neutral toilets everywhere would sort a lot of this out but they're unlikely to be installed everywhere for financial/space reasons.

So we can say 'everyone should have access to toilets in all public spaces' but the implementation is the problem. (I mean look at all those places without proper disabled loos/access even at this point.)


----------



## elbows (Oct 19, 2021)

teuchter said:


> What were the rights that were undermined and how were they undermined?
> 
> Also, having an opinion that one thing is more important than another thing, doesn't mean that you consider the other thing to be unimportant.


Rights are undermined when safety issues for different people are prioritised or diminished based on factors such as the absolute number of victims involved. Framing it as a competition comes with built in risks to peoples rights.

One small example, that should really be read in conjunction with a bunch of related posts that I dont intend to catalogue now because I'm sure you are more than capable of re-reading parts of the thread yourself:

       #1,800


----------



## elbows (Oct 19, 2021)

Would any notable gains have been made in struggles for equality and against things like racism if a huge chunk of the discussion involved the repeated focus on particular minority groups being a threat rather than being victims?

Would people be impressed or turn a blind eye if a thread about statistics regarding how many victims of racist attacks there were in a given year was hijacked by people who wanted to talk about how many people who were not white committed different sorts of violent offences? Well thats what happened on u75 with a past thread about trans victims of violence statistics, and it still makes me sick years later.


----------



## Reno (Oct 19, 2021)

Edit: Ignore


----------



## andysays (Oct 19, 2021)

Sue said:


> I think dismissing some women's fears for their safety like this isn't very helpful either.


Along similar lines to a post I made yesterday, it should possible to criticise the way some individuals express their fears without being accused of dismissing the fears themselves.


----------



## smokedout (Oct 19, 2021)

smokedout said:


> I think it's undeniable that some of the behaviour of usually younger trans activists (and often allies) has been less than helpful and that misogyny, transphobia, and homophobia has played a part on all sides - the way Glinner treated women who disagreed with him on twitter was equally problematic.  And these are powerful social forces which few movements if any are immune from.
> 
> But there is another dynamic within this which probably a lot of people weren't aware of.  The original terfs, who were mostly US based although not exclusively, had been waging war on trans people for decades.  Blogs like twansphobic were outing trans people and mocking them - ordinary trans people not activists - for years before this row broke out.  In the 70s' lesbian feminist group The Gorgans turned up with guns in an attempt to intimidate a trans women and more than one person was physically attacked.  In the UK, the lesbian sex wars as they became known sought to expel trans people from the growing LGB movement.  People like Cathy Brennan and Janice Raymond played an active role in attempting to suppress trans healthcare in the US, with some success.  The reason trans activists started wearing masks was because they were frequently outed by rad fem blogs (as they called themselves back then) and humiliated online.  In this context the idea to host Julia Long as the main speaker at the Hyde Park event which really sparked this conflict on the left was a massive provocation, a bit like claiming you have reasonable concerns about immigration then booking Nick Griffen to be your main speaker.  Long is one of the most notorous transphobic rad fems in the UK and has been equally hostile to sex workers - as have many others within her orbit.  This very small tradition within radical feminism is openly trans eliminist, proud of it in fact, and has caused real harm to trans people over the years.
> 
> ...



Just to add to this, I also think it has to be acknowledged that there is a huge power disparity at play in this conflict in terms of age, access to the media, and also class.  Contrapoints, who has probably taken more shit from angry young queer kids than anyone, talks about how when you look at the timelines of those abusing her they are often literally begging for money for healthcare or housing because they've been kicked out of their home by their families.  For all the characterisation of the trans movement as being comprised of Soros funded middle class students in reality many  trans people, and especially young trans people are homeless, sex workers, unemployed, and have experienced a great deal of violence and discrimination due to being trans.  They have no power in society, beyond being able to scream fuck you terf on twitter and so that is what they do.  

The gender critical movement is largely a movement of lawyers, academics, politicians and celebrities who seemingly have open access to the right wing press to say what they want no matter how damaging to trans lives and in our society this is seen as all very normal, and polite and middle class - it's 'reasonable debate'.  Trans kids don't have that power, and if a riot is the language of the unheard then that is what lies behind a lot of the most virulent shit on social media. That's not a defence of it at all, but it seems to me pretty unavoidable that a highly marginalised group of often very young people is not likely to respond to this debate in the same way as someone who can just ring up The Spectator and broadcast their views to hundreds of thousands of people without consequence.


----------



## Sue (Oct 19, 2021)

andysays said:


> Along similar lines to a post I made yesterday, it should possible to criticise the way some individuals express their fears without being accused of dismissing the fears themselves.


Sure, but the bit in bold



Riklet said:


> What I'm not clear on is where kindness fits in. Id like to think id always try and treat people with kindness and vulnerable people even more so. I don't see this happening with the whole trans debate or gender critical feminist behaviour and arguments. *I see more selfishness and "defending our tribe" than reaching out and trying your best even in difficult and confusing situations.  *


seems to be conflating some women's fears for their physical safety with selfishness and encouraging them to 'try [their] best even in difficult and confusing situations'  seems pretty dismissive of those fears really. 🤷‍♀️


----------



## andysays (Oct 19, 2021)

Sue said:


> Sure, but the bit in bold
> 
> 
> seems to be conflating some women's fears for their physical safety with selfishness and encouraging them to 'try [their] best even in difficult and confusing situations'  seems pretty dismissive of those fears really. 🤷‍♀️


I actually meant to respond to your reply to two sheds , TBH, but messed up a bit because I was on my phone. Now I'm home and on a proper keyboard I don't have that excuse and will try to do this point justice.

The comment you've bolded could be seen as dismissive of someone's fears, but it could also be read as saying, in effect, even if you have genuine and valid fears, you can still try your best to express them in a way which isn't divisive, which doesn't contribute to inflaming an already difficult conversation about a difficult situation.


----------



## bimble (Oct 19, 2021)

LynnDoyleCooper said:


> I think (and I'm happy to be shot down in flames with better arguments and corrections) that there's stuff going on with this debate that's to do with online radicalisation, as has been discussed in other contexts.


Yes. I think this happened to me though of course i didn't see it that way at the time.
It fits my experience to say that a few years ago i got radicalised online, on terfy twitter (have never joined in on twitter i just read it). 
Took a while to realise amongst other things 1) how willing some people there were to pal up with arseholes of the highest degree as long as they thought they were vaguely aligned on this one thing and more importantly 2) what reading this stuff was doing to me (nothing good, made me angry and scared). Deleted terfy twitter ages ago and am much happier for it but am probably by most criteria still a terf. Not sure its of primary importance what anyone thinks in the privacy of their own heads tbh think its words & actions that matter more, thats where i'm at at the moment anyway.


----------



## Sue (Oct 19, 2021)

andysays said:


> I actually meant to respond to your reply to two sheds , TBH, but messed up a bit because I was on my phone. Now I'm home and on a proper keyboard I don't have that excuse and will try to do this point justice.
> 
> The comment you've bolded could be seen as dismissive of someone's fears, but it could also be read as saying, in effect, even if you have genuine and valid fears, you can still try your best to express them in a way which isn't divisive, which doesn't contribute to inflaming an already difficult conversation about a difficult situation.


I can't see what two sheds posted or my reply.


----------



## andysays (Oct 19, 2021)

Sue said:


> I'm not sure how helpful this is, elbows. Edie has explained on here the physical and sexual violence she's experienced at the hands of men and why she's worried about the potential consequences of self-identification as they affect refuges etc.
> 
> Whether those fears are justified in this context or not, I have no idea but those fears certainly exist for quite a lot of women (and I'm guessing those who've experienced that violence in the past are the most worried about it). Back to the skin in the game thing, eh?
> 
> Eta If you're trans fair enough. But keeping in mind how scared some women genuinely are is probably a good idea whatever.


This was the post I originally meant to quote.

I don't think elbows was dismissing Edie's fears, I think they were criticizing the way they were expressed, and TBH I think those criticisms are valid, though I totally accept that the fears themselves are real and need to be addressed rather than dismissed.


----------



## Sue (Oct 19, 2021)

andysays said:


> This was the post I originally meant to quote.
> 
> I don't think two sheds was dismissing Edie's fears, I think they were criticizing the way they were expressed, and TBH I think those criticisms are valid, though I totally accept that the fears themselves are real and need to be addressed rather than dismissed.


Ah it was elbows . I was very confused there...

Anyway, I think this feeds into a wider feeling many women have that their thoughts/fears/whatever are often dismissed/ignored by men but maybe I'm extrapolating here.


----------



## andysays (Oct 19, 2021)

Sue said:


> I can't see what two sheds posted or my reply.


Sorry, I've further confused matters by getting the name of the poster wrong.

See post 1956 for the point I was actually trying to make, attached to your response to the correct poster.

Apologies all round.


----------



## andysays (Oct 19, 2021)

Sue said:


> Ah it was elbows . I was very confused there...
> 
> Anyway, I think this feeds into a wider feeling many women have that their thoughts/fears/whatever are often dismissed/ignored by men but maybe I'm extrapolating here.


I don't think you're extrapolating unreasonably; I think it's understandable that people have different perspectives and what one person reads one way will be read differently by a different person.


----------



## elbows (Oct 19, 2021)

Sue said:


> Ah it was elbows . I was very confused there...
> 
> Anyway, I think this feeds into a wider feeling many women have that their thoughts/fears/whatever are often dismissed/ignored by men but maybe I'm extrapolating here.


Its a very real aspect of the way these issues have been discussed over the years. Unfortunately its ruthlessly exploited to the detriment of both those underlying concerns and trans rights. One of the clues about this is the way that the right-wing press who are utterly uninterested in improving the fundamental situation for women have made heavy use of these angles.

Since the transphobic exploitation of this issue creates a dense minefield for men who care about both womens rights and trans rights, this area is one where trans-inclusionary feminists have a lot to offer, they can bypass a lot of the most overtly bogus angles.


----------



## RebelSpart (Oct 19, 2021)

co-op said:


> So on the Aimee Challenor thread I mentioned that women get suspended off twitter for saying they are women and that twitter has gained a reputation for being aggressively anti-gender critical feminists and pro-TRAs. I was challenged for examples - fair enough - and I gave one, but this one came up in my twitter feed today which is another example where I genuinely struggle to see how anyone can meaningfully call this thread "transphobic"
> 
> View attachment 260797
> 
> ...


Vicky is right, but even if one disagrees with her, there is nothing hateful in what she said. Truth be told, this fake political correctness is not leftist or progressive; it is just the elites and their obedient chattering classes trying (successfully) to distract attention from the crucial issues faces the world, like climate change and rising wealth disparity (as opposed to income disparity -- another distinction these same elites avoid like the plague!)


----------



## Edie (Oct 19, 2021)

elbows said:


> I'm open to suggestions if you have any in regards detail and angles you'd like to discuss further.
> 
> I'd certainly say the subject gets messy in part because many of us may face some internal contradictions or difficulties in finding the right balance. Do you find yourself struggling with that at all? Do you end up framing things as competing rights and then not have much trouble working out which of those takes priority as far as you are concerned? Have you considered the possibility that a potential solution is not to view things through the prism of competing rights?


Describe what I’ve said is trans phobic. You don’t have to bother trawling back looking for quotes. I want to know _what_ it is you find trans phobic about what I say.

You have accused me of it. Back it up, or apologise.


----------



## elbows (Oct 19, 2021)

RebelSpart said:


> Vicky is right, but even if one disagrees with her, there is nothing hateful in what she said. Truth be told, this fake political correctness is not leftist or progressive; it is just the elites and their obedient chattering classes trying (successfully) to distract attention from the crucial issues faces the world, like climate change and rising wealth disparity (as opposed to income disparity -- another distinction these same elites avoid like the plague!)


I wouldnt say its much of a distraction from those other things, its more of a polarisation that can then be used in those other battles.

Also social conservative lost a lot of ground in recent decades, lost when it came to things like same sex marriage. The prospect of an area they can hope to gain victories in is something they are unable to resist.


----------



## RebelSpart (Oct 19, 2021)

elbows said:


> I wouldnt say its much of a distraction from those other things, its more of a polarisation that can then be used in those other battles.
> 
> Also social conservative lost a lot of ground in recent decades, lost when it came to things like same sex marriage. The prospect of an area they can hope to gain victories in is something they are unable to resist.


I oppose all types of gender hatred, but there are consequences concerning the recognition of transgender people as women, especially in sports. It is ridiculous and unfair to have a former special forces man transed to women compete in female MMA.


----------



## elbows (Oct 19, 2021)

Edie said:


> Describe what I’ve said is trans phobic. You don’t have to bother trawling back looking for quotes. I want to know _what_ it is you find trans phobic about what I say.
> 
> You have accused me of it. Back it up, or apologise.


A full case requires a huge number of things you've said to be combined into a broad view of your overall stance. Picking on single examples will quite possibly not meet the standards people seek, but sure, I'll give a recent example anyway.

Lets take this post for example:        #1,852      

You consider trans women to be men who consider themselves women. And you state that you do not care about the opinions of men. So is it unreasonable to conclude that you do not care about the opinion of trans women?

I'll repeat this exercise numerous times if thats what people really demand. But probably a more useful guide as to your exact feelings will not come from me arguing with you, it will come from things like you actually bothering to answer questions others have asked of you such as        #1,930


----------



## Edie (Oct 19, 2021)

elbows said:


> A full case requires a huge number of things you've said to be combined into a broad view of your overall stance. Picking on single examples will quite possibly not meet the standards people seek, but sure, I'll give a recent example anyway.
> 
> Lets take this post for example:        #1,852
> 
> ...


I believe women have the right to have a say about whether we allow men or men who identify as women or trans women into spaces where we are vulnerable. And that men don’t get to over rule us. So with respect to the debate about women’s spaces, I do not care about the opinions of men.

In what way is that trans phobic? Is saying a trans woman is not literally a woman trans phobic? That’s the crux of it. 

It’s not trans phobic to think that. And I reject you trying to tell me what I _must_ believe when all the evidence I have says that isn’t true. 

So I reject that I must consider men who identify as women, actual women. And I maintain that women alone should determine our spaces in order to protect ourselves.


----------



## l'Otters (Oct 19, 2021)

Cloo said:


> It always seems to come down to 'trans women are women'- for a lot of people, saying anything less is transphobia, but for others the implication that a trans woman must be treated exactly the same as all other women clashes in some scenarios with women's rights. The nearest thing we have to a compromise is 'trans women are women [except in a couple of very specific situations]' but then I can see that undermines the concept of trans women being women. What I don't know is how most trans women feel about this - it's not clear to me whether all/most trans women find that caveats utterly upend any possibility of them being accepted as women and must be fought at every turn, or if many might see it as understandable. Because a lot of the time it seems to be 'allies' rather than trans women themselves making the most noise about this, certainly in terms of attacking anyone who suggests such things.


all of women do not have the same needs or risks. There’s a whole stack of markers which increase / decrease my level of risk in a situation (I’m not going to try and make this an objective scale but) eg, height, physical build, skin colour, class, how well I pass as female, how able bodied I am.. etc. My past experiences are going to impact on this too. 

When I said this is about women’s safety, and women’s safety, this is also what I mean. There isn’t just one experience of being a woman. 

I have not read the intervening 2 pages of replies since this morning yet. 

I think it would be interesting to see where a discussion on this subject got to if all the cis men left it alone. 

I also think expecting anyone who is trans to engage on this level is asking way too much. Hats off to those who do, despite the level of shit involved.


----------



## elbows (Oct 19, 2021)

Edie said:


> I believe women have the right to have a say about whether we allow men or men who identify as women or trans women into spaces where we are vulnerable. And that men don’t get to over rule us. So with respect to the debate about women’s spaces, I do not care about the opinions of men.
> 
> In what way is that trans phobic? Is saying a trans woman is not literally a woman trans phobic? That’s the crux of it.
> 
> ...


Thanks for the explanation.

I am ready to spend months considering the possibility that the boundaries of what counts as transphobia in my book may be part of the problem, and how I could improve on this. I have no idea how well I will do, I can only promise that I will try, and that I will spend much more time listening than posting.

If anyone has any reading material that they think may be useful in this regard, please let me know about it.

I am also still suffering from the lingering effects from threads years ago where things reached the stage where accusations of bad faith on all sides made reconciliation and calm reflection very difficult indeed. I believe I know what would diminish most of the negative suspicions I have about some people - if we could have just one thread where it was possible to discuss issues trans people face without all the other stuff about them being a threat to women in certain scenarios becoming a major topic. This is in no way, shape or form a demand that vital issues of womens safety not be discussed here, it is just a suggestion that if we had even one single space where all the issues trans people face could be discussed without that other stuff, it might help people to go beyond the prism of competing rights, to demonstrate clearly what rights of trans people they support and defend. We'll still have other threads where everything can be discussed as much as everyone desires. I say this in part because I've been thinking back to my various reactions over the years in various threads. One that hurt the most and that involved me clashing badly with you was because I could not cope with the apparent reality of u75 at that time that we couldnt even have a thread about trans victims of violence statistics without it being turned into something else, further marginalising the victims of that particular form of violence.

And no I dont really expect that suggestion to be met with acclaim. Its just a thought, given I would really like things to improve here, and that I can see some parallels with how hideous it is when threads about mens violence against women end up with some participants trying to muddy the waters by going on about examples of womens violence against men. We cannot eliminate whataboutery completely, but perhaps threads with narrow and unshakeable focus do reduce the potential to poison the well, and perhaps under those conditions shit-stirrers and those with genuinely transphobic views could be more easily spotted and kept at bay. And I'd really like there to be threads where my suspicions about the transphobia of others are easily crushed. Crushed by virtue of them being given somewhere where they can clearly demonstrate their pro trans rights beliefs without them feeling like they have to endlessly point out the other rights, struggles and safeguards they consider to ultimately be more important.

Even if this idea goes down extremely badly and stands no chance of happening, I'd probably feel a little better if there were more signs of more people understanding why I got so upset that threads about particular victims got turned into something else.


----------



## smokedout (Oct 19, 2021)

l'Otters said:


> all of women do not have the same needs or risks. There’s a whole stack of markers which increase / decrease my level of risk in a situation (I’m not going to try and make this an objective scale but) eg, height, physical build, skin colour, class, how well I pass as female, how able bodied I am.. etc. My past experiences are going to impact on this too.
> 
> When I said this is about women’s safety, and women’s safety, this is also what I mean. There isn’t just one experience of being a woman.
> 
> ...



I think this is interesting and is what people like Butler mean when they talk about the social construction of sex.  Of course there are physical differences between the sexes and it is important to recognise that but often this becomes entangled with assumptions about what womanhood and manhood mean which are actually based on gender rather than sex and often rooted in patriarchy.  So men are always stronger, being a mother is an intrinsic part of womanhood, the experience of manhood and womanhood is universal across cultures and ages etc.  This came up in an earlier thread discussing Linda Bellos' threat to beat up autogynephiles in toilets - lots of gender critical minded people ridiculed the idea this could be a threat, she's a 60 year old woman after all, but as Bellos said, she plays football, she boxes, and a non-disabled 60 year old woman in good shape who is trained to fight would probably wipe the floor with most 60 year old men.  It seems however hard people try sex always becomes entangled with gender which is why the original radical feminists, as Finn Mackay points out in their latest Guardian article, had the aim of “not just the elimination of male privilege but of the sex distinction itself: genital differences between human beings would no longer matter culturally”.  Firestone and Dworkin were far closer to Butler on this question than they are gender critical feminism, and if there's a point of departure between the two movements it would be attitudes towards sex work rather than acknowledging the social construction of sex.

In this context gender critical feminism is not a radical movement, it's a conservative movement that asserts that men are always stronger and inherently violent so the best women can hope for is to establish safe spaces and ferociously police the borders of womanhood to prevent any males from entering those spaces.  That's an understandable position, but not a radical one that seeks to overthrow the whole fucking applecart as the orginal radical feminists did.  Anyway its a tangent and I'm probably waffling a bit but just something I'd been thinking about and excuse to plug Finn's latest piece


----------



## bimble (Oct 19, 2021)

Have you got the book @smokedout ? why are 'academic' books so bloody expensive. i do really want this one but am too mean.

When you say that gender critical feminism is "a conservative movement that asserts that men are always stronger and inherently violent so the best women can hope for is to establish safe spaces and ferociously police the borders of womanhood to prevent any males from entering those spaces. "

I suppose you are referring to 'the terfosphere' or something, as seen on twitter etc, but do you think there exists at all a contemporary movement that is both feminist and properly critical of the whole gender applecart? Or is that just not a thing any more.
I want that, genuine 'gender critical' thought, and gender destruction, set the whole thing on fire, and am not personally interested much in the women's spaces safety problem, but do recognise that's cos i am lucky and not traumatised by or fearful of men to the degree that very many women are.


----------



## smokedout (Oct 19, 2021)

bimble said:


> Have you got the book @smokedout ? why are 'academic' books so bloody expensive. i do really want this one but am too mean.
> 
> When you say that gender critical feminism is "a conservative movement that asserts that men are always stronger and inherently violent so the best women can hope for is to establish safe spaces and ferociously police the borders of womanhood to prevent any males from entering those spaces. "
> 
> ...



I want it too but it is a bit expensive and I'm not very good at reading books anymore so haven't really kept up.  I think it is there though, I haven't read Full Surrogacy Now, but that seems to echo the second wave calls to smash up the nuclear family and radically rethink human reproduction.  I think Firestone would very much have approved of the trans pregnancy project, although I suspect that as in Firestone's writing there's an element of optimism about what technology might achieve.  More abstract movements like Xenofeminism also lean towards that tradition.

It's there in Queer/Trans and anarchafeminism as well, I think a lot of people, myself included, support gender abolition whilst recognising people should have the right to exist in ways which enable them to function and be healthy/whole within the confines of the current system.  I have some optimism with what's happening with the younger generation as well - people say there's hundreds of different genders now as if it's a bad thing, but can gender, as a means of enforcing male dominance over women really continue to function as it has under such circumstances.  Is this is first real fracture-line in the gender binary or will those born physically male continue to dominate those born physically female, and more masculine genders dominate more feminine genders, I don't know, time will tell, but it seems worth a try.

The last couple of trans rights demos I've been on really reflected that something interesting is happening.  In appearance at least the (very young) crowd looked a lot like you might imagine a world without gender to look - butches in ballgowns, fey non-binary folk with bushy beards, trans women in three piece suits, really a world away from the idea that this is a movement based in stereotypes - you'd be hard pressed to pin a gender or even guess the physical sex of quite a few people there.  I know presentation isn't everything, although it's an important component of gender, and fashions change, but a new paradigm seems to be emerging and it made me feel hopeful.


----------



## LDC (Oct 19, 2021)

I get a thank you in _Full Surrogacy Now_, that's my (very limited) claim to fame! I found it thought provoking and worthwhile, yeah your summary of it is about right smokedout. _Xenofeminism_ was recommended to me but it made me feel very old, it was like some sixth form art project the way it was designed.


----------



## bimble (Oct 19, 2021)

Yes. Thats why i'm optimistic in the longer term.
I think we're in the middle of something and can't see it very well at all from here, added to that being old doesn't help.
But the '_there are hundreds of genders now and all of them have a flag isn't that ridiculous'_ thing, I agree, it's silly but its good, it mostly just means that young people are talking about this stuff and questioning it in a way that was unthinkable before. I get the feeling its mostly girls doing this but idk, still good. 
My brain says, they should be advocating to broaden the meaning of the word woman, not counting themselves out of that category but still, I think that's a time thing, maybe it is a process. 
I'm not going to go on tiktok and pick a gender though i'll just sit in my armchair and wait for it to all pan out.


----------



## hitmouse (Oct 19, 2021)

bimble said:


> I suppose you are referring to 'the terfosphere' or something, as seen on twitter etc, but do you think there exists at all a contemporary movement that is both feminist and properly critical of the whole gender applecart? Or is that just not a thing any more.
> I want that, genuine 'gender critical' thought, and gender destruction, set the whole thing on fire, and am not personally interested much in the women's spaces safety problem, but do recognise that's cos i am lucky and not traumatised by or fearful of men to the degree that very many women are.


I think I might've mentioned these before on another thread, but there's:





						Falling star: Countering gender essentialism with sex essentialism
					

Red and Black Leeds on the limitations of both gender essentialism and sex essentialism as a way to understand gender expression and identity.




					libcom.org
				



Which I have read, and then ones that I haven't but I've heard/seen plugged around quite a bit are:




__





						Gender Nihilism: An Anti-Manifesto - Alyson Escalante
					

Alyson Escalante's critiques of the trans community's reliance on gender essentialism and a proposal for a radical negation as the solution to gendered alienation and oppression. To be included in the upcoming anthology Fuck Your Gender Neutral Prison! A Nihilist Insurrection Against Gender...




					libcom.org
				











						Against the Gendered Nightmare
					

baedan Against the Gendered Nightmare Fragments On Domestication 2014




					theanarchistlibrary.org
				



Which might be part of what you're looking for, although that baedan one in particular does also look a bit bloody unreadable to me? Can't say I'm a fan of Lewis, although again that's partly just a prose style thing.


----------



## bimble (Oct 19, 2021)

hitmouse said:


> __
> 
> 
> 
> ...


loving this.
Absolutely fearless and imo wonderful, thanks for posting, the apologetic addendum is so sad.

eta just read it again. Still love it and agree wholeheartedly.

"The negation of all things, ourselves included, is the only means through which we will ever be able to gain anything."

But this is basically radical buddhism (sort of) and it is not going to catch on in a big way. I am totally sold though.


----------



## HoratioCuthbert (Oct 19, 2021)

bimble said:


> loving this.


Quick reply, did they have you at "burn to the ground"


----------



## smokedout (Oct 19, 2021)

bimble said:


> Yes. Thats why i'm optimistic in the longer term.
> I think we're in the middle of something and can't see it very well at all from here, added to that being old doesn't help.
> But the '_there are hundreds of genders now and all of them have a flag isn't that ridiculous'_ thing, I agree, it's silly but its good, it mostly just means that young people are talking about this stuff and questioning it in a way that was unthinkable before. I get the feeling its mostly girls doing this but idk, still good.
> My brain says, they should be advocating to broaden the meaning of the word woman, not counting themselves out of that category but still, I think that's a time thing, maybe it is a process.
> I'm not going to go on tiktok and pick a gender though i'll just sit in my armchair and wait for it to all pan out.



Yeah I get really frustrated and quite depressed at a lot of the sneering aimed at younger feminists and queer people by the older generations.  I kind of half hoped my generation would be above that but it seems perennial.  Sure there are faultlines on trans people and sex work, but things change, for the better and the worse, some things will stick some won't  but there are a lot of very committed young feminists doing some important and interesting stuff and they deserve better than to be dismissed as blue haired idots who don't even know what a woman is.

I've seen people connected with groups like the LGB Alliance bemoaning that young people who call themselves queer are just heterosexuals larping because it's trendy and I thought that's fucking incredible (if probably not really true).  Straight people are pretending to be Queer because it's cool, that's a victory, clear and unequivocal, compared to the way the world was went I went to school.  But the LGB Alliance seem to be furious about it. There's a huge component to all this that seems to be typical generational whinging that things were better in the old days and the kids don't understand anything anymore.  I think the kids understand a lot more than we think and I worry that the relentless smearing of libfems, or the woke, or blue haired queers by the older generations of feminists and LGBT people (who themselves were similarly smeared) is really abandoning our duty to support young feminists and LGBTQ people at a time when the far right is on the rise globally - and they won't care whether someone calls themselves a lesbian, or gay, or queer, or trans or nonbinary, or even an adult human female, they will come for us all.


----------



## Sue (Oct 19, 2021)

smokedout said:


> Yeah I get really frustrated and quite depressed at a lot of the sneering aimed at younger feminists and queer people by the older generations.  I kind of half hoped my generation would be above that but it seems perennial.  Sure there are faultlines on trans people and sex work, but things change, for the better and the worse, some things will stick some won't  but there are a lot of very committed young feminists doing some important and interesting stuff and they deserve better than to be dismissed as blue haired idots who don't even know what a woman is.
> 
> I've seen people connected with groups like the LGB Alliance bemoaning that young people who call themselves queer are just heterosexuals larping because it's trendy and I thought that's fucking incredible (if probably not really true).  Straight people are pretending to be Queer because it's cool, that's a victory, clear and unequivocal, compared to the way the world was went I went to school.  There's a huge component to all this that seems to be typical generational whinging that things were better in the old days and the kids don't understand anything anymore.  I think the kids understand a lot more than we think and I worry that the relentless smearing of libfems, or the woke, or blue haired queers by the older generations of feminists and LGBT people (who themselves were similarly smeared) is really abandoning our duty to support young feminists and LGBTQ people at a time when the far right is on the rise globally - and they won't care whether someone calls themselves a lesbian, or gay, or queer, or trans or nonbinary, or even an adult human female, they will come for us all.



I do wonder though how/if the views of these young feminists will change as they get older. 

I know my female friends and I have changed our views on a lot of things as being treated unfairly at work became more apparent, many of them were screwed financially and otherwise when they had children and still others suffered physical and/or sexual violence from men. 

So I hope I'm wrong and overly pessimistic and things are improving but...let's see.


----------



## elbows (Oct 19, 2021)

bimble said:


> But this is basically radical buddhism (sort of) and it is not going to catch on in a big way. I am totally sold though.


----------



## bimble (Oct 19, 2021)

They have followed up. It is something of a retraction.









						Beyond Negativity: What Comes After Gender Nihilism?
					

Alyson Escalante Beyond Negativity: What Comes After Gender Nihilism?




					theanarchistlibrary.org
				




'If gender operates not merely at the ideological or symbolic level, then a response which does operate only at that level is inadequate. As such, I am quite convinced that the model of resistance proposed in Gender Nihilism needs to be rejected, and a new model developed on the basis of a material investigation into the material base which produces the ideologies of gender and difference which Gender Nihilism was so obsessed with rebutting. The rest of this essay will attempt to do that work.'


----------



## hitmouse (Oct 19, 2021)

bimble said:


> They have followed up. It is something of a retraction.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I was literally just in the middle of posting that. Again, a bit tl;dr for me, but yeah, it's my impression that Escalante has shifted into a bit of a more old-fashioned trad Marxist position. Did also try to find their medium page but I think something about it may be a little bit off:


----------



## elbows (Oct 19, 2021)

bimble said:


> They have followed up. It is something of a retraction.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Typical, nihilism never amounts to much in the end 

Anyway I've not finished this follow up yet having enjoyed the original, so I've nothing else to add yet.


----------



## smokedout (Oct 19, 2021)

Sue said:


> I do wonder though how/if the views of these young feminists will change as they get older.
> 
> I know my female friends and I have changed our views on a lot of things as being treated unfairly at work became more apparent, many of them were screwed financially and otherwise when they had children and still others suffered physical and/or sexual violence from men.
> 
> So I hope I'm wrong and overly pessimistic and things are improving but...let's see.



Well everyone's views change a bit as they age I guess but I think it would be a mistake to characterise young feminists as being obsessed with identity and trans issues to the exclusion of all else.  It was young feminists primarily behind the recent demos after Sarah Everard's murder, or organising against the police bill, or groups like Sisters Uncut taking direct action against cuts to VAWG services.  There's people doing stuff with women in detention centres, or fighting for social housing for lone parents, there's a prison abolitionist movement taking shape and growing movements against police violence and racism - there's a lot going on that is directly tackling male violence at both individual and institutional level, more than there was I think when I was more active in my 20s, and it deserves support even if the older generation don't see eye to eye with everything a lot of young feminists think.  It'll be their world soon, and they will make it a different one, but hopefully a better one, I think the signs are quite positive, assuming of course there is a world to be made better by then.


----------



## Sue (Oct 19, 2021)

smokedout said:


> Well everyone's views change a bit as they age I guess but I think it would be a mistake to characterise young feminists as being obsessed with identity and trans issues to the exclusion of all else.  It was young feminists primarily behind the recent demos after Sarah Everard's murder, or organising against the police bill, or groups like Sisters Uncut taking direct action against cuts to VAWG services.  There's people doing stuff with women in detention centres, or fighting for social housing for lone parents, there's a prison abolitionist movement taking shape and growing movements against police violence and racism - there's a lot going on that is directly tackling male violence at both individual and institutional level, more than there was I think when I was more active in my 20s, and it deserves support even if the older generation don't see eye to eye with everything a lot of young feminists think.  It'll be their world soon, and they will make it a different one, but hopefully a better one, I think the signs are quite positive, assuming of course there is a world to be made better by then.


Oh i didn't mean to characterise them like that. I was just musing that some of the structural and societal inequalities and their consequences become much more stark as you age. 

In my 20s, sure I'd experienced some shit. By my 40s, I'd experienced and seen way way more and the attendant consequences were much worse. So maybe the current priorities of those involved will change as they age too but who knows.


----------



## bimble (Oct 19, 2021)

hitmouse said:


> I was literally just in the middle of posting that. Again, a bit tl;dr for me, but yeah, it's my impression that Escalante has shifted into a bit of a more old-fashioned trad Marxist position. Did also try to find their medium page but I think something about it may be a little bit off:
> 
> View attachment 293409


Yeah, i had to navigate past those soupbowls too.  
Their second piece of writing, the materialist retraction,  makes me feel sad.
It feels cowed and submissive to the currents whilst the first was singular & truthful if a bit unworldly.


----------



## smokedout (Oct 19, 2021)

I think one thing I've noticed following younger feminists and trans/queer people on twitter, largely due to this row, is that a lot of what was critiqued on here as obsessive identity politics has moved on.  The whole privilege checking campus culture thing was a decade ago, that's half a lifetime if you're 20, and whilst the various movements emerging now have anti-racism, anti-transphobia, anti-misogyny etc in their veins they are becoming more concerned with more material and dare I say class based matters - such as prisons, the police, landlords, precarious employment, housing etc.  In fact if there's a worrying tendency now I'd say it's a re-emergence of Marxist-Leninist thought in some quarters, as well as the seduction of Corbynite social democracy and radical liberalism but that's always been there, it's nothing new on the UK left.


----------



## elbows (Oct 19, 2021)

bimble said:


> Yeah, i had to navigate past those soupbowls too.
> Their second piece of writing, the materialist retraction,  makes me feel sad.
> It feels cowed and submissive to the currents whilst the first was singular & truthful if a bit unworldly.


It had a weary air of inevitability about it. But then I probably considered it to be inevitable because I think some people are attracted to nihilism because they cannot sustain belief that reform will lead to the promised land. But they can still dream of something decent if only we were starting from scratch. Thus their nihilism tends to only be a temporary position, the urge to build in the space created by the obliteration of what has gone before will overwhelm their ability to settle on the void. Which isnt surprising, material conditions in the void are conditions of uninhabitability, there is no life support. The prospect of a fresh start has superficial appeal, but actually having that opportunity seems unlikely, would likely still be haunted by ghosts of the past even if it were somehow achieved, and wouldnt stay fresh for long. The risk of repeating the same old mistakes when either starting from scratch or looking to communism seems like it needs to be dealt with before going too much further along such paths.

Oh well, at least I found myself shouting 'categorise it and I will satirise it'.


----------



## bimble (Oct 19, 2021)

elbows said:


> It had a weary air of inevitability about it. But then I probably considered it to be inevitable because I think some people are attracted to nihilism because they cannot sustain belief that reform will lead to the promised land. But they can still dream of something decent if only we were starting from scratch. Thus their nihilism tends to only be a temporary position, the urge to build in the space created by the obliteration of what has gone before will overwhelm their ability to settle on the void. Which isnt surprising, material conditions in the void are conditions of uninhabitability. The prospect of a fresh start has superficial appeal, but actually having that opportunity seems unlikely, would likely still be haunted by ghosts of the past even if it were somehow achieved, and wouldnt stay fresh for long. The risk of repeating the same old mistakes when either starting from scratch or looking to communism seems like it needs to be dealt with before going too much further along such paths.
> 
> Oh well, at least I found myself shouting 'categorise it and I will satirise it'.


I think they were right the first time, it wasn't daft nihilism, liberation from gender inside yr own head (refusal to define your self in any fixed way, or align yourself at all in relation to the imposed power structures that are gender) is a valid and powerful and important thing to strive for, but, as they say in the second piece, maybe you can only live that way if you can afford it.


----------



## elbows (Oct 19, 2021)

bimble said:


> I think they were right the first time, it wasn't daft nihilism, liberation from gender inside yr own head (refusal to define your self in any fixed way, or align yourself at all in relation to the imposed power structures that are gender) is a valid and powerful and important thing to strive for, but, as they say in the second piece, maybe you can only live that way if you can afford it.


I like things such as dadaism and the original version of The Prisoner.

I observed with sadness, decades after the event, the obvious limitations of this approach when it was attempted in the 1960s etc. Internal liberation is possible to a certain extent, but there seem to be limits, and no shortage of dubious things waiting in the wings to be constructed in the space that opens up.

I am not that well read. I originally cheated somewhat by watching things like the episode of Adam Curtis's Century of the Self entitled "There is a policeman inside all our heads - he must be destroyed". I did not trust his narrative to provide a complete guide, but he offered up various fragments suitable for further exploration using decent sources. I havent watched it again for many years, I might rewatch it now to see what I make of it all these years later.









						The Century of the Self - 3. There is a Policeman Inside All Our Heads; He Must Be Destroyed
					

This film looks at how radical ideas inspired the rise of the




					www.bbc.co.uk


----------



## bimble (Oct 19, 2021)

elbows said:


> I like things such as dadaism and the original version of The Prisoner.
> 
> I observed with sadness, decades after the event, the obvious limitations of this approach when it was attempted in the 1960s etc. Internal liberation is possible to a certain extent, but there seem to be limits, and no shortage of dubious things waiting in the wings to be constructed in the space that opens up.
> 
> ...



ha. i was a maniacal fan of that,  the century of the self, when it came out. I had to purchase a dvd version from Ohio as i recall, before streaming became a thing.
The piece of writing we both liked is not really about gender, its a bigger thing about how we might try to think about the self, whether it is a fixed thing and how we define it.


----------



## Edie (Oct 19, 2021)

elbows said:


> Thanks for the explanation.
> 
> I am ready to spend months considering the possibility that the boundaries of what counts as transphobia in my book may be part of the problem, and how I could improve on this. I have no idea how well I will do, I can only promise that I will try, and that I will spend much more time listening than posting.
> 
> ...


To be honest elbows I don’t really remember you getting upset, but then a lot of people were upset. I don’t have strong feelings about you either way. I mean go ahead and start a thread to discuss just issues of violence against trans people (with no discussion about the conflicts with womens rights) if you want. I won’t post on it if that would help you?

(Although ftr I’m obviously as horrified by violent abuse towards any vulnerable people, including trans people, as you are).

On the issue of increased polarisation, I’ve definitely become more polarised. That started very early on with being called a terf, then realising that believing _anything_ less than twaw and full access would not be tolerated, regardless of womens fears. That’s the point I became very fucking cynical.

Anyway time I took a break from terfing about. Funny thing about that is I wouldn’t of even described myself as a feminist particularly back then. I did- and do- believe that men and women are naturally, _biologically_, suited to gender roles as a generalisation. I certainly don’t hold with the idea gender is predominantly socially determined, or we are women only because we have been raised as women or identify with women. As far as I can tell it’s clearly a GxE interaction. I think men and women are different but no less than each other for it. We have different strengths, different weaknesses.

I don’t think you can separate sex from gender, or sex from sexuality. I think gay people are sexually attracted to a persons sex- their body- as much as they are to gender. Or at least I am- 90% sex I’d say, I just wouldn’t want to have a sexual relationship with a woman even if she was manly in all her interests and how she presented or identified cos I’m just not gay, thinking about female bodies doesn’t turn me on, male bodies with their hardness and angles and the way they stand, move, hold themselves attract me. Nothing wrong with women who are attracted to women, it’s just not me! The idea that sex and gender and sexuality are independent doesn’t match my “lived experience” what can I say.


----------



## Orang Utan (Oct 19, 2021)

Edie 
I would recommend reading Cordelia Fine’s Delusions Of Gender and Testosterone Rex


----------



## elbows (Oct 20, 2021)

Edie said:


> To be honest elbows I don’t really remember you getting upset, but then a lot of people were upset. I don’t have strong feelings about you either way. I mean go ahead and start a thread to discuss just issues of violence against trans people (with no discussion about the conflicts with womens rights) if you want. I won’t post on it if that would help you?
> 
> (Although ftr I’m obviously as horrified by violent abuse towards any vulnerable people, including trans people, as you are).



Thanks, though I think I've demonstrated that I'm still not in a fit state to discuss these issue properly so I'll spend some months trying to listen and get myself in better shape before I consider wading into anything else. The entire idea might not have been sensible to actually try here at the moment anyway, and may just have been a desperate attempt to find a different way to try to explain why I get so upset with the direction things tend to be taken in.


----------



## Edie (Oct 20, 2021)

Orang Utan said:


> Edie
> I would recommend reading Cordelia Fine’s Delusions Of Gender and Testosterone Rex


Ooh ok will check them out. Ta.


----------



## kabbes (Oct 20, 2021)

Edie said:


> Ooh ok will check them out. Ta.


I would second it. Delusions of Gender is a masterwork.


----------



## Edie (Oct 20, 2021)

elbows said:


> Thanks, though I think I've demonstrated that I'm still not in a fit state to discuss these issue properly so I'll spend some months trying to listen and get myself in better shape before I consider wading into anything else. The entire idea might not have been sensible to actually try here at the moment anyway, and may just have been a desperate attempt to find a different way to try to explain why I get so upset with the direction things tend to be taken in.


Why do you get so upset if you don’t mind me asking? Is it personal for you in some way?

Not just aimed at you, but theres two problems with screaming terf or transphobe at women like me. 

The most important is it leaves nowhere to go with language for those people who genuinely hate trans people, who think they should not be allowed to exist, have no provision made for them, think it’s justified to abuse them or even beat or murder them. People like this exist. 

Whereas I  think that people should be able to identify, look, dress, experiment, live how they want. And that provision should be made to keep them safe. And in the event I witnessed bullying, abuse or violence I’d get involved and I’m not shy when I’m angry.

Is this phobia? Fear? It’s not really is it. Is it even exclusionary? It’s a pretty liberal view it seems to me, a live and let live view. (I also doubt I’m a radical feminist but you seemed sure). 

The second reason it seems stupid to throw those terms round is it polarises and excludes vast numbers of ordinary women with concerns. What’s the point of that unless your just interested in virtue signalling like ginger_syn . This is why ‘allies’ (urgh) are so keen to prove themselves by trying to start fights and make the situation worse. Best ignored.


----------



## HoratioCuthbert (Oct 20, 2021)

Edie said:


> Whereas I  think that people should be able to identify, look, dress, experiment, live how they want. And that provision should be made to keep them safe. And in the event I witnessed bullying, abuse


Wow!  Were those likes on Dylans' posts the other day just you rolling on your phone in yer sleep aye?


----------



## HoratioCuthbert (Oct 20, 2021)

Virtue signalling.


----------



## dylans (Oct 20, 2021)

HoratioCuthbert said:


> Wow!  Were those likes on Dylans' posts the other day just you rolling on your phone in yer sleep aye?



I completely agree with her. I have no issue with anyone dressing or living as they wish. If someone wants to identify as, live as, dress as a woman, fine. They should be allowed to live their lives in peace and with dignity. Nothing I have said implies otherwise.

The issue I have is when the demand is made that I accept trans women are actual women or should be given access to safe women's spaces. This is do not accept. I do not believe that a person can change sex, sex is a biological fact and is immutable and binary in mammals and human beings are mammals.  I do not accept that identity can change biology. I don't think its controversial to state that only a woman has a cervix or that lesbians cannot have a penis or that men cannot give birth. In fact I think the entire idea is absurd and borderline mysticism. I think the likes of Kier Starmer tying himself in knots unable to state a simple uncontroversial biological fact was entirely disingenuous. It is not trans people or people expressing themselves according to female stereotypes that I object to, it is trans ideology that says I am a bigot if reject the mantra that trans women are women.


----------



## belboid (Oct 20, 2021)

Why do you get so upset if you don’t mind me asking? Is it personal for you in some way?


Edie said:


> Not just aimed at you, but theres two problems with screaming terf or transphobe at women like me.
> 
> The most important is it leaves nowhere to go with language for those people who genuinely hate trans people, who think they should not be allowed to exist, have no provision made for them, think it’s justified to abuse them or even beat or murder them. People like this exist.
> 
> ...


The fear you have of trans women is out of all proportion to the danger they represent to you, ie it is an irrational fear.  Which is the definition of phobia.


----------



## Edie (Oct 20, 2021)

belboid said:


> The fear you have of trans women is out of all proportion to the danger they represent to you, ie it is an irrational fear.  Which is the definition of phobia.


I don’t feel that fear, any more than I have a general mistrust of men. I’d call that a healthy wary ness, but it doesn’t stop me having male friends or a relationship with a man. 

I am twitchy as hell about men I don’t know in my personal space mind you. I’m alert. In my experience it’s pretty common for men to flirt, give you the come on, get too close, not want to take no for an answer, follow you round, have expectations about you. Even in public. In bars, clubs, on dates, I’ve often used the toilets as a way to get away. That’s probably why I’m not wild on completely gender neutral facilities, altho I wouldn’t object if that’s all a place had.

One of the scrub nurses at work is trans and I’ve no problem with them, I dunno which theatre changing room they use (the womens is a communal space with only toilet cubicles, where you change into scrubs and get your crocs on etc). 

If this is your definition of phobia I think it’s meaningless.


----------



## Cloo (Oct 20, 2021)

But to me the heart of this is not that women like Edie  are scared of/phobic of trans women.  It's that they are scared of _men _and it's men's misogyny and violence (and the patriarchy's underresourcing of women's safety) that creates a barrier for trans women entering spaces seen as  safe for women.  Not women's unkindness or irrationality. 

I don't have that fear of blokes but then I'm not an abuse survivor and I seem to have had a far more positive experience of guys than most women and while, as I've said, I have no problem with trans women in my 'spaces',  I'm not going to say other women who aren't comfortable with it due to bad experiences with men should give their heads a wobble and just accept it.


----------



## belboid (Oct 20, 2021)

Edie said:


> I don’t feel that fear, any more than I have a general mistrust of men. I’d call that a healthy wary ness, but it doesn’t stop me having male friends or a relationship with a man.
> 
> I am twitchy as hell about men I don’t know in my personal space mind you. I’m alert. In my experience it’s pretty common for men to flirt, give you the come on, get too close, not want to take no for an answer, follow you round, have expectations about you. Even in public. In bars, clubs, on dates, I’ve often used the toilets as a way to get away. That’s probably why I’m not wild on completely gender neutral facilities, altho I wouldn’t object if that’s all a place had.
> 
> ...


But you wouldn’t think it was a phobia because your fear (or mistrust, I don’t think the distinction really matters) is proportionate, in your opinion.   It is also perfectly normal for people to have a generalised ‘fear’ of another group but to have no issues with individuals from said group.   Boris Johnson appoints quite a few people of colour to his cabinet but it doesn’t stop him from being a racist shit.


----------



## Wilf (Oct 20, 2021)

ginger_syn said:


> Perhaps its more a trans person would feel uncomfortable using the disabled toilets the same way any reasonable abled bodied person would, i know I feel uncomfortable using disabled toilets while i can still manage to get into a standard cubicle, even though  I have issues with mobility.


Yes. Whatever the issues being discussed here, whichever 'side' you are on, 'use the disabled toilets' is not the answer.  If nothing else, depending on conditions, disabled people might be less able to wait for the toilet.


----------



## belboid (Oct 20, 2021)

Cloo said:


> I'm not going to say other women who aren't comfortable with it due to bad experiences with men should give their heads a wobble and just accept it.


I don’t think anyone should say fears should just be ignored, they are  understandable, even if misplaced.  But to what extent should those fears be allowed to be a veto on providing services/access to others?


----------



## ElizabethofYork (Oct 20, 2021)

Some women are wary of transwomen because of male behaviour.
Some transwomen are wary of men because of male behaviour.

We have a common problem.


----------



## HoratioCuthbert (Oct 20, 2021)

dylans said:


> I completely agree with her. I have no issue with anyone dressing or living as they wish. If someone wants to identify as, live as, dress as a woman, fine. They should be allowed to live their lives in peace and with dignity. Nothing I have said implies otherwise.
> 
> The issue I have is when the demand is made that I accept trans women are actual women or should be given access to safe women's spaces. This is do not accept. I do not believe that a person can change sex, sex is a biological fact and is immutable and binary in mammals and human beings are mammals.  I do not accept that identity can change biology. I don't think its controversial to state that only a woman has a cervix or that lesbians cannot have a penis or that men cannot give birth. In fact I think the entire idea is absurd and borderline mysticism. I think the likes of Kier Starmer tying himself in knots unable to state a simple uncontroversial biological fact was entirely disingenuous. It is not trans people or people expressing themselves according to female stereotypes that I object to, it is trans ideology that says I am a bigot if reject the mantra that trans women are women.


Very polished, well done. The memory of your other posts just fades away.

I'm not really giving much of a fuck who you think should access our spaces, there's a lot of discussion over multiple threads on what that sort of access looks like and it doesn't amount to "abused women, just give your heads a wobble!", I don't suppose there's any point in me going over what other posters have explained far more eloquently than I have, so feel free to read back on the posts in question, you may learn a lot.

Speaking as someone whose very first experience with men was my abusive father, the way I feel about transwomen accessing shelters is that I recognise that in many ways transwomen are even more vulnerable than I am. I trust the women working at these  Shelters would be able to tell whether someone was escaping abuse or whether they were trying to pull a fast one- the latter situation  I would imagine is very rare indeed. I understand from reading back on posts from someone that works at a Shelter that their "stance" on this matter is that they take these things on a case by case basis, and I can't think of a more reasonable position to take.

Because the alternative here, given there are _no_ spaces for transwomen specifically to access, is that a transwoman escaping violence is simply turned away and expected to fend for themselves. People that are actually experienced in this area are not allowed to use their judgement and explore all options- it has to be blanket ban, computer says no type of thing. And you are insisting that I- an abuse victim- must be ok with leaving another person that has experienced the same thing as me, or worse, to fend for themselves while we wait for alternatives that aren't likely to emerge any time soon. This must be my take on it right, because I'm a woman? Well I'm not ok with this,  I never will be. Their abusers are same as those that abuse me. We are both running from the same brutal misogynist men.


----------



## IC3D (Oct 20, 2021)

As I said before I use disabled toilets for my daughter and had dirty looks for doing so a couple of times, if necessary she goes into the womens on her own if I feel its safe. I don't even feel comfortable with her being out of my sight in the instance. If there was a man in that space I wouldn't do it. I could read pages of argument for how Im wrong but that fact isn't going to change.


----------



## belboid (Oct 20, 2021)

IC3D said:


> As I said before I use disabled toilets for my daughter and had dirty looks for doing so a couple of times, if necessary she goes into the womens on her own if I feel its safe. I don't even feel comfortable with her being out of my sight in the instance. If there was a man in that space I wouldn't do it. I could read pages of argument for how Im wrong but that fact isn't going to change.


How would you know? And how would you feel about a mid-transition trans man (Beard but no penis, say) using that toilet? How would you check?


----------



## ginger_syn (Oct 20, 2021)

Edie said:


> Why do you get so upset if you don’t mind me asking? Is it personal for you in some way?
> 
> Not just aimed at you, but theres two problems with screaming terf or transphobe at women like me.
> 
> ...


Its not virtue signalling, I just dislike bullies and bigots


----------



## IC3D (Oct 20, 2021)

belboid said:


> How would you know? And how would you feel about a mid-transition trans man (Beard but no penis, say) using that toilet? How would you check?


Are you trying to change my views or entrench them?


----------



## Athos (Oct 20, 2021)

HoratioCuthbert said:


> ... Because the alternative here, given there are _no_ spaces for transwomen specifically to access, is that a transwoman escaping violence is simply turned away and expected to fend for themselves. ... And you are insisting that I- an abuse victim- must be ok with leaving another person that has experienced the same thing as me, or worse, to fend for themselves while we wait for alternatives that aren't likely to emerge any time soon.



I think most people find this line of argument - that trans women should be admitted because of the harm they're likely to suffer otherwise - much more persuasive than the idea that they should be admitted because 'trans women are women'.  That so many have picked the latter as a hill on which to die has been a counterproductive tactical blunder.


----------



## belboid (Oct 20, 2021)

IC3D said:


> Are you trying to change my views or entrench them?


I’m asking you a couple of fairly straightforward questions.   Ones that would, do, crop up when people are forced to use toilets corresponding to their sex as assigned at birth.


----------



## smokedout (Oct 20, 2021)

Cloo said:


> But to me the heart of this is not that women like Edie  are scared of/phobic of trans women.  It's that they are scared of _men _and it's men's misogyny and violence (and the patriarchy's underresourcing of women's safety) that creates a barrier for trans women entering spaces seen as  safe for women.  Not women's unkindness or irrationality.
> 
> I don't have that fear of blokes but then I'm not an abuse survivor and I seem to have had a far more positive experience of guys than most women and while, as I've said, I have no problem with trans women in my 'spaces',  I'm not going to say other women who aren't comfortable with it due to bad experiences with men should give their heads a wobble and just accept it.



It can be both.  Given the age of most posters on this forum, and how transphobic society was when we were growing up, I'd be pretty astonished if anyone isn't carrying some latent transphobia, I certainly am.  The stigma of femininity in men, and masculinity in women is centuries old and baked into our culture and it's only very recently that has started to come apart almost immediately followed by a massive backlash against trans people using many of the same tropes as open transphobia did, but now intellectualised and laundered by what's actually quite a conservative strand of feminism - it's a fetish, they're not safe round children, it's a mental illness, they're confused homosexuals etc.  And this activates many more latent social prejudices against disability, mental health, homophobia, and misogyny - it violates gender, the glue which holds patriarchy together and which we almost all reproduce to some extent no matter how hard we try not to.  I wonder how many gender criticals have actually done the work about unpacking all that and how societal transphobia might have influenced their thoughts - because you know, I'm not transphobic, I don't support trans people being murdered or beaten up, is a pretty low fucking bar, transphobia is somewhat more complex than that.

In addition there has been a virulent online and right wing media campaign against trans people and that stuff works.  There's a reason the right wing press runs a picture of Karen White with every trans story if they can possibly get away with it.  It's powerful and it works on a level often beneath our intellectual understanding.  Someone absorbed in the gender critical world is being bombarded with constant misinformation, and all the other tactics which have been used by bigots to promote hate - hyper focus on the tiny number of trans criminals, or internet oddballs, or those with the most extreme political views - it's exactly how benefit claimants were turned from victims of un unjust system to enemies of the state by the press and it's depressing to see people on the left who resisted that falling for all the same techniques when it comes to trans people.  The emotional impact of being told Ian Huntley is trans and naming himself after the mother of the girls he murdered stays with you far longer than the impact of finding out it wasn't true, which is actually just a bit embarrassing if you've been going round insisting it was (potentially creating yet another negative emotional response, if it hadn't been for those bloody trans everywhere I wouldn't have made a fool of myself).  So even if you think you can recognise the misinformation, it stills works, it sinks in on some level and it helps form your picture of trans people and your emotional response to them.  That's why I'm genuinely interested why Edie cautiously welcomed trans people into toilets and changing rooms three years ago but now it's a hard line.  Fear of male violence (and suppressed rage at women's oppression) has been activated many times historically against minorities, it's what the Dworkin quote I posted earlier in the thread speaks to, so I don't think it's really legitimate to suggest that the gender critical movement is motivated solely by the fear of men and transphobia plays no part.  That very understandable, and sadly all too justified fear can be used as a shield to avoid examining other possible factors at play and gender critical feminism provides a perfect intellectual framework to justify latent prejudices without ever having to admit to yourself that you might be being a bigot.


----------



## HoratioCuthbert (Oct 20, 2021)

Athos said:


> I think most people find this line of argument - that trans women should be admitted because of the harm they're likely to suffer otherwise - much more persuasive than the idea that they should be admitted because 'trans women are women'.  That so many have picked the latter as a hill on which to die has been a counterproductive tactical blunder.


I'm old enough that I can give younger people the space to make tactical blunders, especially if they are kicking out at a society that is being incredibly hostile towards them. So are most people on urban. I really struggle to sympathise with women my age that just couldn't help flying to the right because of these tactical blunders. Am I the wanker? Usually am I guess


----------



## Athos (Oct 20, 2021)

HoratioCuthbert said:


> I'm old enough that I can give younger people the space to make tactical blunders, especially if they are kicking out at a society that is being incredibly hostile towards them. So are most people on urban. I really struggle to sympathise with women my age that just couldn't help flying to the right because of these tactical blunders. Am I the wanker? Usually am I guess


Yeah, I get where it's coming from. Just a shame that something so difficult to resolve - a disagreement about whether or not trans women are women - has become the focus of the debate, rather than, say, the shared interests of cis and trans women in protecting themselves and each other from male violence.  I do think it's resulted in some people who were formerly broadly trans inclusive joining some pretty dodgy groups.  The fault for that lies with the bigots trying to pull people, those who push people away with unreasonable demands of complete adherence to particular ideological aspects, and those who allow themselves to be moved so easily.


----------



## Cloo (Oct 20, 2021)

ElizabethofYork said:


> Some women are wary of transwomen because of male behaviour.
> Some transwomen are wary of men because of male behaviour.
> 
> We have a common problem.


Exactly this - I think all women, cis and trans need to be looking at how we can secure more support for all women and our common issues. The trouble with social media is that it has reduced everything to a shouting gallery where well-meaning people often feel they have to ride in to support 'the most disadvantaged party', which they understandably see as trans women, by having a go at cis women. But it's not an oppression contest the end of the day - all women are fucked over by the patriarchy and  parts of the patriarchy is having fun making hay about 'Oh we must protect the womens from those terrible trans rights activisists', while avoiding responsibility for actually helping any women.

I've heard it said that Dom Cummings floated trans rights as a good 'culture war' for the Tories to profit by dividing and ruling - don't know if true or not, but all too plausible.


----------



## a_chap (Oct 20, 2021)

Edie said:


> ... get your crocs on



One of my favourite Rolling Stones songs   

er... I'll get my coat.


----------



## elbows (Oct 20, 2021)

Athos said:


> Yeah, I get where it's coming from. Just a shame that something so difficult to resolve - a disagreement about whether or not trans women are women - has become the focus of the debate, rather than, say, the shared interests of cis and trans women in protecting themselves and each other from male violence.



If a big chunk of the debate in some quarters has stagnated on that these days, I think its only fair to mention what much of the heated debate was actually about leading up to that point.

There were proposed changes in regards self-identification and official gender recognition. There were some concerns. Some people used those concerns as an opportunity to gain ideological traction, sometimes in the service of specific versions of feminism that had previously been lacking momentum in the current era. Its important to note that I say some people, not all the people who had such concerns. Those who were doing it because they could make it fit a very specific feminist ideology were not going to be interested in turning it into a discussion about shared interests, they cant weaponise the concerns if that happens, and indeed they tended to resort to especially extreme language and accusations when other people tried to take it in that direction.

To somewhat answer Edies question to me about why I get so upset, the above is one of the big reasons in the last 5 years here for me. It was pretty blatant at the time but of course there were also legitimate areas of concern in some of the stuff that came up as a result, and emotive aspects made it hard to unpick the fair from the cynical misuse of the fair, a massive polarisation multiplier had been unleashed.

Let me be more specific about that - I was especially alarmed that during the course of discussions about proposed changes regarding self-identification, it became apparent that some people didnt understand the trans rights that were already enshrined in law. They sometimes said things which suggested they were not just alarmed by proposed expansion to those rights or the practical application of them, but that they also didnt believe some of the existing rights and rules should be in place. And when I asked them about this directly, I almost never got a reply. That silence was more than uncomfortable, and rightly or wrongly I drew certain conclusions as a result. People who fear some rights of women would be taken away as a result of such changes should well understand what the fear of rights erosion is like, how strong a force such fears are, how they motivate people to leap to the defence of such rights. So they should be able to understand how I felt when worrying about different rights being eroded.

Other upsetting aspects include seeing that u75 tolerated things which drove away valued members of the community. And having grown up at a time where many other battles against ignorance and bigotry had already had many mainstream victories and were reasonably well understood and baked into various norms, values and rules of acceptable conduct in at least some communities, I found it hard to come to terms with an area where this clearly wasnt yet the case. Where so many professed not to even see the problem, or to have no intention of doing anything about it. Again people who are all too aware of the ways that sexism etc manifest on forums and in communities in a slippery and persistent manner will probably be able to relate to that, and I expect there are memories of occasions where abhorrent misogynistic comments were not dealt with by the community in a manner deemed anything close to satisfactory. The ill feeling and sense of betrayal can linger a long time as a result, especially if people feel they were left isolated or fed to the lions, or that a hideous mass of shitty beliefs are bubbling just below the surface of the community. Well its the same with trans stuff, but with added muddying of the waters and even less clarity in the minds of moderators about how to handle it, which often leads to complete inaction.

I could probably list a bunch of other reasons but I want to leave it at that for now. I already indicated a few others in previous posts. And there arent a bunch of deeply personal ones for me to reveal, I dont get upset about these issues because of anything specific to do with me and my family.


----------



## teuchter (Oct 20, 2021)

Athos said:


> I think most people find this line of argument - that trans women should be admitted because of the harm they're likely to suffer otherwise - much more persuasive than the idea that they should be admitted because 'trans women are women'.



That line of argument suggests that others particularly likely to be subject to harm carried out by men should also be admitted. That could include gay or bisexual men, and it could also include any man who might be percieved to be gay, bisexual, or transgender regardless of how they themselves identify. There might even be situations where it would be justified to include men in certain racial/ethnic minorities. 

So don't you end up with the same basic problem of disagreements about how and where the line should be drawn between those who do and don't get access?


----------



## Edie (Oct 20, 2021)

belboid said:


> But you wouldn’t think it was a phobia because your fear (or mistrust, I don’t think the distinction really matters) is proportionate, in your opinion.   It is also perfectly normal for people to have a generalised ‘fear’ of another group but to have no issues with individuals from said group.   Boris Johnson appoints quite a few people of colour to his cabinet but it doesn’t stop him from being a racist shit.


I do think my mistrust of men is proportionate, yes. 

I also don’t believe men _become_ women because they feel like women or identify as a woman. I think being a woman is a complex interaction between genetics, physiology, society and social relations, not something you can identify into or out of. 

I find your response to IC3D concerns about sending his little girl into a Ladies loo if there might be a man in there telling. I just think you deliberately aren’t prepared to acknowledge concerns about male sexual violence towards girls and women. In fact you are goading him. I wonder why? What’s in that for you?



smokedout said:


> That's why I'm genuinely interested why Edie cautiously welcomed trans people into toilets and changing rooms three years ago but now it's a hard line.  Fear of male violence (and suppressed rage at women's oppression) has been activated many times historically against minorities, it's what the Dworkin quote I posted earlier in the thread speaks to, so I don't think it's really legitimate to suggest that the gender critical movement is motivated solely by the fear of men and transphobia plays no part.  That very understandable, and sadly all too justified fear can be used as a shield to avoid examining other possible factors at play and gender critical feminism provides a perfect intellectual framework to justify latent prejudices without ever having to admit to yourself that you might be being a bigot.


You are right I’ve become more hard line about it, and I’ve been reflecting on why. I think part of it is it’s so infuriating to have your concerns dismissed by ‘allies’ (its always allies, often men). It’s like, if you won’t even acknowledge this as a problem and want to steam-roller over it repeating twaw then fuck you. I’ll just defend our spaces.

What Cloo and Athos are saying is true, that if you look at the common denominator it’s the same- fear of male violence. But it doesn’t seem enough to support trans rights to safe access to services. What’s your view? Do you support risk assessment, separate accommodation in hospitals and prisons, and gender neutral toilets and changing rooms? Or do you think it’s twaw and anything less than full access to womens spaces is transphobia?

I’ll read the book Orang Utan and kabbes suggested.


----------



## Athos (Oct 20, 2021)

teuchter said:


> That line of argument suggests that others particularly likely to be subject to harm carried out by men should also be admitted. That could include gay or bisexual men, and it could also include any man who might be percieved to be gay, bisexual, or transgender regardless of how they themselves identify. There might even be situations where it would be justified to include men in certain racial/ethnic minorities.
> 
> So don't you end up with the same basic problem of disagreements about how and where the line should be drawn between those who do and don't get access?


Not really, for two reasons.  First, there's already a near universal consensus amongst women that men - even when victims of male violence - ought not to be admitted to women's refuges; there isn't that consensus regarding trans women.  Secondly, there are facilities provided specially for men in circumstances where there aren't for trans women.


----------



## l'Otters (Oct 20, 2021)

Edie said:


> I do think my mistrust of men is proportionate, yes.
> 
> I also don’t believe men _become_ women because they feel like women or identify as a woman. I think being a woman is a complex interaction between genetics, physiology, society and social relations, not something you can identify into or out of.
> 
> ...


Am I wrong in assuming IC3D is a bloke? 
(If they’re not, why can’t they go into the women’s loos with their daughter?)

I thought mens feelings were irrelevant to this discussion.


----------



## kabbes (Oct 20, 2021)

I try to stay out of the trans discussions because who needs another male voice on this?

Since the discussion has temporarily turned to the question of how people become radicalised and divided, however, I would like to make an observation.  My “uh-oh” moment, when I could see that a massive culture war on this was coming (rather than it just being something played out in various niches) was when a transwoman (sorry, the name escapes me) became Womens’ Officer at Goldsmiths university and took it as an immediate priority to redefine membership to legislate a belief in “trans women are women” as inherent to being a woman and thus part of who the Womens’ Officer was representing.  That was one of the early moments that cis women who had previously largely been oblivious to the arguments started asking, “who the fuck are you to tell me if I’m a woman?”  Maybe it’s just my perception, but that seemed to represent the spearhead of a whole new phase of rather nastier rhetoric that divided two sides that should have had much to unify them.


----------



## belboid (Oct 20, 2021)

Edie said:


> I do think my mistrust of men is proportionate, yes.
> 
> I also don’t believe men _become_ women because they feel like women or identify as a woman. I think being a woman is a complex interaction between genetics, physiology, society and social relations, not something you can identify into or out of.
> 
> I find your response to IC3D concerns about sending his little girl into a Ladies loo if there might be a man in there telling. I just think you deliberately aren’t prepared to acknowledge concerns about male sexual violence towards girls and women. In fact you are goading him. I wonder why? What’s in that for you?


My questions concerned how that, perfectly understandable, fear would manifest itself in practise.  Because how things operate in the actual world is what matters.   It isn’t an attempt to goad, it is an attempt to tease out the issues and possible contradictions within thought.


----------



## Athos (Oct 20, 2021)

kabbes said:


> ... to redefine membership to legislate a belief in “trans women are women” as inherent to being a woman and thus part of who the Womens’ Officer was representing.


Sorry, are you saying that that she attempted to make a belief that trans women are women a necessary (though presumably not sufficient) condition of womanhood i.e. that females who don't belive 'twaw' aren't women?


----------



## Edie (Oct 20, 2021)

belboid said:


> My questions concerned how that, perfectly understandable, fear would manifest itself in practise.  Because how things operate in the actual world is what matters.   It isn’t an attempt to goad, it is an attempt to tease out the issues and possible contradictions within thought.


It was weird


----------



## hitmouse (Oct 20, 2021)

Edie said:


> The second reason it seems stupid to throw those terms round is it polarises and excludes vast numbers of ordinary women with concerns. What’s the point of that unless your just interested in virtue signalling like ginger_syn . This is why ‘allies’ (urgh) are so keen to prove themselves by trying to start fights and make the situation worse. Best ignored.


I think if you're trying to avoid polarising and excluding people, and you want people to treat your posts as being made in good faith instead of projecting motivations onto you, it's probably good to treat other people as posting in good faith and not project motivations onto them.


----------



## Edie (Oct 20, 2021)

l'Otters said:


> Am I wrong in assuming IC3D is a bloke?
> (If they’re not, why can’t they go into the women’s loos with their daughter?)
> 
> I thought mens feelings were irrelevant to this discussion.


Maybe I’ve been inconsistent with that. I said it when I was angry tbf.


----------



## Edie (Oct 20, 2021)

hitmouse said:


> I think if you're trying to avoid polarising and excluding people, and you want people to treat your posts as being made in good faith instead of projecting motivations onto you, it's probably good to treat other people as posting in good faith and not project motivations onto them.


I don’t think ginger_syn is posting in good faith I think she enjoys shit stirring. Altho tbf sometimes I say shit just for the rise too. 

Like the comment about the left eating itself. I do think this kind of identity politics have been- and is - incredibly damaging to the left. Why is the focus on identity (twaw) rather than on community (fighting for adequate services for all)? But I did throw that last line in for the hell of it.


----------



## HoratioCuthbert (Oct 20, 2021)

elbows said:


> If a big chunk of the debate in some quarters has stagnated on that these days, I think its only fair to mention what much of the heated debate was actually about leading up to that point.
> 
> There were proposed changes in regards self-identification and official gender recognition. There were some concerns. Some people used those concerns as an opportunity to gain ideological traction, sometimes in the service of specific versions of feminism that had previously been lacking momentum in the current era. Its important to note that I say some people, not all the people who had such concerns. Those who were doing it because they could make it fit a very specific feminist ideology were not going to be interested in turning it into a discussion about shared interests, they cant weaponise the concerns if that happens, and indeed they tended to resort to especially extreme language and accusations when other people tried to take it in that direction.
> 
> ...


I was in a right state when I was reading Dylans' posts the other night, tears the lot. Then seeing hardly anyone challenge it but the usual tiny few, then seeing likes on the posts. I think this was the angriest and upset I've ever been reading stuff on here. The last time I was in a similar state it was watching "Help" ... now that was more like watching me on the telly , but the strength of feeling was the same- or not far off.
I typed out several posts, and deleted them. I was too angry. Since then I've made comments on that that seem flippant maybe...I feel like if I try and inject humour or something it might help get my point across.
I admire that you don't make any attempt to hide how upset you are about reading this stuff. I don't find it so easy, if I type something that is as open as you often are I often find myself deleting it. If I did it drunk the night before, it is deleted the next day.
You've been asked a number of times why you get so upset (I recall this happening the first time around too) and I always found that quite bizarre. Like yourself, there are certain things that I just almost lose my mind over. To think of examples- Hillsborough and the ongoing treatment of victims families, Syrians constantly being told they are bullshitting about the regime over there.... I'm not a football fan, I'm not from Liverpool, I'm not Syrian. So I'm a Knight riding in on a horse? Or signalling virtue to get likes on social media? If so, I'm doing a very good job of hiding such shallowness from myself at least. I've got a tension headache after reading some of this stuff last few days.

There is an obvious thing we all have in common though- it's power. The lack of it, in different ways and in very different situations. Seeing someone wield theirs carelessly over another. If I could pinpoint what it is that gets me in such a state about stuff that I don't have absolute direct personal  experience of, it is probably that. 

Jesus if I press send on this I'll end up spewing with the adrenaline aaaah


----------



## Shechemite (Oct 20, 2021)

kabbes said:


> I try to stay out of the trans discussions because who needs another male voice on this?
> 
> Since the discussion has temporarily turned to the question of how people become radicalised and divided, however, I would like to make an observation.  My “uh-oh” moment, when I could see that a massive culture war on this was coming (rather than it just being something played out in various niches) was when a transwoman (sorry, the name escapes me) became Womens’ Officer at Goldsmiths university and took it as an immediate priority to redefine membership to legislate a belief in “trans women are women” as inherent to being a woman and thus part of who the Womens’ Officer was representing.  That was one of the early moments that cis women who had previously largely been oblivious to the arguments started asking, “who the fuck are you to tell me if I’m a woman?”  Maybe it’s just my perception, but that seemed to represent the spearhead of a whole new phase of rather nastier rhetoric that divided two sides that should have had much to unify them.



I think the Hyde park ‘she wolf’ attack catalysed a lot as well


----------



## Edie (Oct 20, 2021)

HoratioCuthbert said:


> I was in a right state when I was reading Dylans' posts the other night, tears the lot. Then seeing hardly anyone challenge it but the usual tiny few, then seeing likes on the posts. I think this was the angriest and upset I've ever been reading stuff on here. The last time I was in a similar state it was watching "Help" ... now that was more like watching me on the telly , but the strength of feeling was the same- or not far off.
> I typed out several posts, and deleted them. I was too angry. Since then I've made comments on that that seem flippant maybe...I feel like if I try and inject humour or something it might help get my point across.
> I admire that you don't make any attempt to hide how upset you are about reading this stuff. I don't find it so easy, if I type something that is as open as you often are I often find myself deleting it. If I did it drunk the night before, it is deleted the next day.
> You've been asked a number of times why you get so upset (I recall this happening the first time around too) and I always found that quite bizarre. Like yourself, there are certain things that I just almost lose my mind over. To think of examples- Hillsborough and the ongoing treatment of victims families, Syrians constantly being told they are bullshitting about the regime over there.... I'm not a football fan, I'm not from Liverpool, I'm not Syrian. So I'm a Knight riding in on a horse? Or signalling virtue to get likes on social media? If so, I'm doing a very good job of hiding such shallowness from myself at least. I've got a tension headache after reading some of this stuff last few days.
> ...


Sorry but you need to get a grip on yourself. Proper snowflake stuff this.


----------



## HoratioCuthbert (Oct 20, 2021)

Snowflake, virtue signalling. Keep going!


----------



## Kevbad the Bad (Oct 20, 2021)

Some of us have a very straightforward approach to life. We say what we mean. sometimes we keep quiet, out of caution for the consequences. So if we say that we aren't transphobic we are being genuine. That doesn't mean that our every subconscious thought has been verified by the pc police, or that our every statement can't be misinterpreted or interpreted in unintended ways. This 'debate' has been kicking around for ages. Most of us have heard most of the arguments both ways, or think we have. On urban but also elsewhere. Actions outside have a huge bearing on all of this.


MadeInBedlam said:


> I think the Hyde park ‘she wolf’ attack catalysed a lot as well


And the London Anarchist Book Fair.


----------



## kabbes (Oct 20, 2021)

Athos said:


> Sorry, are you saying that that she attempted to make a belief that trans women are women a necessary (though presumably not sufficient) condition of womanhood i.e. that females who don't belive 'twaw' aren't women?


My memory of it, which was years ago now so apologies if it’s not completely accurate, is that in an attempt to enshrine “twaw” as necessary doctrine, she defined “women” in a way that left a lot of women on these boards feeling that they were excluded from the definition.


----------



## Kevbad the Bad (Oct 20, 2021)

I think a lot of people are reluctant or scared to post on this subject. I am. I get fed up with deliberate misinterpretations and goadings, or so it seems to me. By the time I work up the courage to post something I'm already more annoyed than I should be, even when I'm trying to be all calm and collected. Yet sometimes I feel I have to because of the inaccurate and intemperate accusations flying around. I get particularly annoyed at left wing feminists being portrayed as being in league with incels, the far right or religious extremists


----------



## elbows (Oct 20, 2021)

Kevbad the Bad said:


> I get particularly annoyed at left wing feminists being portrayed as being in league with incels, the far right or religious extremists



Well why dont you try listening properly to the left wing feminists that understand all too well, and oppose, the highly specific branch of feminism that people like me are actually referring to. Its very specific indeed.


----------



## hitmouse (Oct 20, 2021)

HoratioCuthbert said:


> Snowflake, virtue signalling. Keep going!


Women's concerns and fears need to be taken seriously and listened to, they shouldn't be dismissed. Except for the virtue-signalling snowflake ones of course, they just need to get a grip.


----------



## maomao (Oct 20, 2021)

Kevbad the Bad said:


> I think a lot of people are reluctant or scared to post on this subject. I am. I get fed up with deliberate misinterpretations and goadings, or so it seems to me.


Why? I share opinions with people on both sides of the debate but none of them are important enough to me to upset people further over.


----------



## HoratioCuthbert (Oct 20, 2021)

Kevbad the Bad said:


> I think a lot of people are reluctant or scared to post on this subject. I am. I get fed up with deliberate misinterpretations and goadings, or so it seems to me. By the time I work up the courage to post something I'm already more annoyed than I should be, even when I'm trying to be all calm and collected. Yet sometimes I feel I have to because of the inaccurate and intemperate accusations flying around. I get particularly annoyed at left wing feminists being portrayed as being in league with incels, the far right or religious extremists


Try not to get particularly annoyed about this, where it has been referenced in this thread it is usually concerning a specific example. The allegiance I was referring to for example was in that article that Dylans had shared about the spa the other night.


----------



## Kevbad the Bad (Oct 20, 2021)

elbows said:


> Well why dont you try listening properly to the left wing feminists that understand all too well, and oppose, the highly specific branch of feminism that people like me are actually referring to. Its very specific indeed.


I try and listen to a lot of viewpoints, but I don't agree with them all. In my part of the world views akin to gender critical thought are common amongst left wing women, often expressed quite vociferously. I listen to them as well.


----------



## Athos (Oct 20, 2021)

kabbes said:


> My memory of it, which was years ago now so apologies if it’s not completely accurate, is that in an attempt to enshrine “twaw” as necessary doctrine, she defined “women” in a way that left a lot of women on these boards feeling that they were excluded from the definition.


Ta. I don't recall that, but bizarre if accurate.


----------



## Kevbad the Bad (Oct 20, 2021)

maomao said:


> Why? I share opinions with people on both sides of the debate but none of them are important enough to me to upset people further over.


I don't usually deliberately attempt to upset people, but it's very easy to do on this issue. Believe it or not I do pass my posts through my own internal filter, and like others don't actually post more than half the posts I start out with.


----------



## HoratioCuthbert (Oct 20, 2021)

hitmouse said:


> Women's concerns and fears need to be taken seriously and listened to, they shouldn't be dismissed. Except for the virtue-signalling snowflake ones of course, they just need to get a grip.


That comment was some light relief indeed, the immaturity of it. Strength of feeling is a weakness, crying in your own house. This isn't what people see out there, a grip is certainly maintained at all times- probably to my detriment(everyone's really, we shouldn't always suck things up) . I wouldn't have survived 20 years in carework if I didn't have a grip lol


----------



## Steel Icarus (Oct 20, 2021)

Edie said:


> Sorry but you need to get a grip on yourself. Proper snowflake stuff this.


That's quite an unkind thing to say in response to an honest post tbh. Snowflake is a shortcut a whole host of nasty bastards use to dismiss any complaints about their bigotry and I'm sure you don't want to be aligned with them even by accident.


----------



## Knotted (Oct 20, 2021)

Edie said:


> Sorry but you need to get a grip on yourself. Proper snowflake stuff this.



"Snowflake stuff" is what focus on the community looks like in practice. The idea that you shouldn't be concerned if it doesn't affect you is exactly the anti-community "I'm alright Jack" attitude. These boards being a community with (dwindling) trans members.

This conversation keeps teetering on being reasonable. And I think it is pretty reasonable when it focuses on the specifics around issues with women's spaces. In that post about the left eating itself you were the one who decided to veer away that issue that you keep telling us you see as central. It was a funny old post and I think you might have posted it up on an impulse and if that's the case I'll at least understand that. If you want to walk it back a bit I don't think anybody will think less of you.


----------



## Edie (Oct 20, 2021)

Knotted said:


> "Snowflake stuff" is what focus on the community looks like in practice. The idea that you shouldn't be concerned if it doesn't affect you is exactly the anti-community "I'm alright Jack" attitude. These boards being a community with (dwindling) trans members.
> 
> This conversation keeps teetering on being reasonable. And I think it is pretty reasonable when it focuses on the specifics around issues with women's spaces. In that post about the left eating itself you were the one who decided to veer away that issue that you keep telling us you see as central. It was a funny old post and I think you might have posted it up on an impulse and if that's the case I'll at least understand that. If you want to walk it back a bit I don't think anybody will think less of you.


I probably do need to walk it back a bit, but I absolutely stand by this:



> Like the comment about the left eating itself. I do think this kind of identity politics have been- and is - incredibly damaging to the left. Why is the focus on identity (twaw) rather than on community (fighting for adequate services for all)? But I did throw that last line in for the hell of it.


----------



## l'Otters (Oct 20, 2021)

Edie said:


> Sorry but you need to get a grip on yourself. Proper snowflake stuff this.


So some women’s feelings are important, almost sacrosanct, and others can be dismissed as snowflakes.


----------



## l'Otters (Oct 20, 2021)

If men agree with Edie, their views are important and cannot be dismissed. If not, they should butt out because they’re men and it’s irrelevant to them.

If women agree with her, their feelings are of primary importance in this debate no matter how damaging the consequences of acting on them might be. If not, they’re snowflakes who need to get a grip.


----------



## Edie (Oct 20, 2021)

S☼I said:


> That's quite an unkind thing to say in response to an honest post tbh. Snowflake is a shortcut a whole host of nasty bastards use to dismiss any complaints about their bigotry and I'm sure you don't want to be aligned with them even by accident.


Maybe it was unkind.


l'Otters said:


> So some women’s feelings are important, almost sacrosanct, and others can be dismissed as snowflakes.


Horatio is a woman.


----------



## frogwoman (Oct 20, 2021)

Jesus fucking Christ


----------



## l'Otters (Oct 20, 2021)

Edie said:


> Maybe it was unkind.
> 
> Horatio is a woman.


I know.
It’s a key part of the point.
You’ve been going on about how important womens feelings are and how they absolutely have to be considered. Until a woman comes along who you don’t agree with, expresses their feelings, and you tell them to get a grip and call them a snowflake.


----------



## Edie (Oct 20, 2021)

l'Otters said:


> I know.
> It’s a key part of the point.
> You’ve been going on about how important womens feelings are and how they absolutely have to be considered. Until a woman comes along who you don’t agree with, expresses their feelings, and you tell them to get a grip and call them a snowflake.


I’m not sure you are understanding the argument here so maybe best leave it.

Anyway, HoratioCuthbert im sorry I was unkind and dismissed your feelings and called you a snowflake. I should of stfu at that point.

I’m gonna leave this now. I think many of you live in a different reality to me, and clearly in that reality the rights of men who identify as women trump the rights of actual women. Through the fucking looking glass. Cheerio.


----------



## Epona (Oct 20, 2021)

'kinell...


----------



## elbows (Oct 20, 2021)

I rest my case.


----------



## frogwoman (Oct 20, 2021)




----------



## teuchter (Oct 20, 2021)

Athos said:


> Not really, for two reasons.  First, there's already a near universal consensus amongst women that men - even when victims of male violence - ought not to be admitted to women's refuges; there isn't that consensus regarding trans women.  Secondly, there are facilities provided specially for men in circumstances where there aren't for trans women.


But these arguments are essentially reverting to a position that accepts without question that "transwomen are women". The position you were saying was a strategic error.


----------



## Looby (Oct 20, 2021)

l'Otters said:


> I know.
> It’s a key part of the point.
> You’ve been going on about how important womens feelings are and how they absolutely have to be considered. Until a woman comes along who you don’t agree with, expresses their feelings, and you tell them to get a grip and call them a snowflake.


This is partly why I rarely post on these threads.

I’ve been told and read about other trans inclusive women that:
I’m not a feminist
That I’m a traitor to women
That I’m a handmaiden ffs

It’s all fucked and really upsetting and I just don’t know how to engage with this shit anymore.

I’m fucking sick of seeing shit like the above, that the rights of women aren’t important to trans inclusive people. It’s wrong and deeply insulting as a woman to be accused of that.

A woman who has suffered at the hands of men. Who had experienced abuse and sexual violence.

As a professional who has worked in refuges, hostels etc making these risk assessments to keep people safe.

As a professional who has worked with trans adults and young people and has fought so hard to keep people safe and well.

It’s heartbreaking but hey, I’m probably just a snowflake or not living in the right reality.


----------



## elbows (Oct 20, 2021)

It is a testament to your decency and solidarity that you are still prepared to speak up in that way occasionally despite the fact that the usual suspects rarely ever change and cause such pain. Its often one step forward two steps back when it comes to them, and Edie is a great example of that.


----------



## HoratioCuthbert (Oct 20, 2021)

teuchter said:


> But these arguments are essentially reverting to a position that accepts without question that "transwomen are women". The position you were saying was a strategic error.


Well no, not without question. The shelters accept transwomen on a case by case basis. Thing is most of the time you would have no idea these transwomen were trans unless they volunteer that information, so basically if they had to use facilities for men, it would normally pose far more difficulties for everyone concerned than if it would if the staff at shelters use their discretion. 

If there is a blanket rule that they can't access them at all, then that's something being implemented "without question" 

It's a very difficult subject isn't it, and in an ideal world we would have separate facilities and there would be no complaints. But when a transwoman has to go to a shelter, this is an emergency- life or death-  situation! You can't just arse about, the staff at the shelter need as much space as possible to make the right decisions so that no one comes to harm. That means no blanket ban or anything else - case by case.


----------



## Looby (Oct 20, 2021)

elbows said:


> It is a testament to your decency and solidarity that you are still prepared to speak up in that way occasionally despite the fact that the usual suspects rarely ever change. Its often one step forward two steps back when it comes to them, and Edie is a great example of that.


It’s not enough though, I’m not doing enough or even know what to do or say. I think a lot of people feel lost over this, on all sides.


----------



## elbows (Oct 20, 2021)

Looby said:


> It’s not enough though, I’m not doing enough or even know what to do or say. I think a lot of people feel lost over this, on all sides.



Yes I feel that way a lot, spend long periods in silence as a result, and then sometimes it builds up and bursts out explosively over a period of days. Sometimes I start to hope that we are making some small progress, but then things go backwards in a hurry and crush my hopes.

I dont think its entirely futile to speak out because when there are periods when we dont speak out about this, a nasty side becomes emboldened and starts to casually chat shit without much fear of being challenged about their narrow views.


----------



## frogwoman (Oct 20, 2021)

Its so blatantly obvious many of you do not know any trans people.


----------



## HoratioCuthbert (Oct 20, 2021)

Looby said:


> It’s not enough though, I’m not doing enough or even know what to do or say. I think a lot of people feel lost over this, on all sides.


Your posts have cheered me up, I'm sure others here feel the same. Sometimes that's enough 

Eta: cheered me up wrong words to use- i meant, a relief to read. If you get what I mean!


----------



## ginger_syn (Oct 20, 2021)

Edie said:


> I don’t think ginger_syn is posting in good faith I think she enjoys shit stirring. Altho tbf sometimes I say shit just for the rise too.
> 
> Like the comment about the left eating itself. I do think this kind of identity politics have been- and is - incredibly damaging to the left. Why is the focus on identity (twaw) rather than on community (fighting for adequate services for all)? But I did throw that last line in for the hell of it.


I am posting in good faith, I'm saying exactly what I think and saying i dont like bigots and bullies isn't stirring anything nor is it a  complicated thing to understand . But if you want to play the beleaguered martyr carry on.


----------



## Athos (Oct 20, 2021)

teuchter said:


> But these arguments are essentially reverting to a position that accepts without question that "transwomen are women". The position you were saying was a strategic error.


These arguments don't turn on insisting people accept that twaw.


----------



## l'Otters (Oct 20, 2021)

Edie said:


> I’m not sure you are understanding the argument here so maybe best leave it.
> 
> Anyway, HoratioCuthbert im sorry I was unkind and dismissed your feelings and called you a snowflake. I should of stfu at that point.
> 
> I’m gonna leave this now. I think many of you live in a different reality to me, and clearly in that reality the rights of men who identify as women trump the rights of actual women. Through the fucking looking glass. Cheerio.


Is my poor silly woman's brain not up to the task of understanding the argument here? 

It's not like I've come across any of them before


----------



## smokedout (Oct 20, 2021)

Kevbad the Bad said:


> I think a lot of people are reluctant or scared to post on this subject. I am. I get fed up with deliberate misinterpretations and goadings, or so it seems to me. By the time I work up the courage to post something I'm already more annoyed than I should be, even when I'm trying to be all calm and collected. Yet sometimes I feel I have to because of the inaccurate and intemperate accusations flying around. I get particularly annoyed at left wing feminists being portrayed as being in league with incels, the far right or religious extremists



But some left wing feminists have co-operated with the far right and religious extremists on this issue.  I could give countless examples.  That may be uncomfortable to some but it's a simple truth.


----------



## smokedout (Oct 20, 2021)

Edie said:


> You are right I’ve become more hard line about it, and I’ve been reflecting on why. I think part of it is it’s so infuriating to have your concerns dismissed by ‘allies’ (its always allies, often men). It’s like, if you won’t even acknowledge this as a problem and want to steam-roller over it repeating twaw then fuck you. I’ll just defend our spaces.


I realise you've said you're leaving the thread now so don't anticipate a response but you have consistently argued that trans women should be kept out of women's toilets and changing rooms because of fears over safety - a view you didn't used to hold.  But from this statement it appears your views have shifted because you've become embroiled in this row and you are angry about the positions some trans activists have taken.  It's not that something has happened that has caused you to recalibrate the risk of trans people using those space, it's that trans activists have pissed you off and so you have become more hardline in response to that.  I'd like to be wrong, but a cynical reading of this could be that on toilets and changing rooms at least you have used fears about safety as a shield for your real motivation which is getting one over on the trans who've annoyed you, and what appears even worse is that the punishment you have settled on is to remove the places of safety trans people have to protect them from the violence on which you claimed those safety concerns were founded.  If so that's pretty reprehensible to me.  Trans people are fucking people and our right to safety is not something that can be bounced around and granted and then taken away on a whim based on how much trans activists have annoyed you that day.


----------



## HoratioCuthbert (Oct 20, 2021)

Nail on head


----------



## Orang Utan (Oct 21, 2021)

frogwoman said:


> Its so blatantly obvious many of you do not know any trans people.


This must be the crux of it.


----------



## Raheem (Oct 21, 2021)

Random interjection.

The anti-trans narrative hypes up the idea that trans rights are mainly supported by men. But polling shows (yougov, for example) that women are considerably more likely to support trans rights than men. I don't think this is surprising. It seems obvious to me that women have less reason to be invested in the idea that men are men, women are women, and everyone should know their place.

I say this as a cis man. But, at the same time, I would point out that the idea that "well I would, wouldn't I?" is not statistically supported.


----------



## dylans (Oct 21, 2021)

Raheem said:


> Random interjection.
> It seems obvious to me that women have less reason to be invested in the idea that men are men, women are women, and everyone should know their place.


Men are men and women are women because that characteristic is defined by our biology. Am I a bigot if I state that the only vertebrates which change sex during their lifetime are some species of teleost fish? or if I state that the uterus is a feature of the female anatomy of all species of placental and marsupial mammals?

Can I identify out of my taxon?

As for knowing our place, it seems to me that it is trans activists who insist a certain identity makes one a man or woman who are reinforcing gender stereotypes. Why does identifying with the features and characteristics associated with the opposite sex turn that person into the opposite sex? Why can't men or women reject the gender stereotypes of what a man and woman means without becoming the other? It seems to me that it is much more radical to state that trans women and trans men are men and women who are gender non conforming within their sex and who reject the gender assumptions and stereotypes associated with that sex. "Trans women are men" is not a statement of bigotry, on the contrary, it a  rejection of toxic male stereotypes that says men must behave a certain way in order to be men.


----------



## Athos (Oct 21, 2021)

dylans said:


> Men are men and women are women because that characteristic is defined by our biology. Am I a bigot if I state that the only vertebrates which change sex during their lifetime are some species of teleost fish? or if I state that the uterus is a feature of the female anatomy of all species of placental and marsupial mammals?
> 
> Can I identify out of my taxon?


The meanings of words aren't fixed in time and place.  If enough people use the word 'woman' to include trans women, then that comes to be what it means; that doesn't require anyone to change their biological sex.  And it means that people moving from one category to another can't be seen as purely a matter of their own individualism.

Similarly, you might well change taxon if definitions of the different taxons changed.

Does it make you a bigot to refuse to accept that the definitions of gender - man and woman - can be divorced from sex classes?  Not necessarily, but, given the practical consequences of that political choice, is worth reflecting on your motivation.

On the second point, I used to think similar, but increasingly understand that both cis people not conforming with gender and trans people being trans are ways to undermine gender. And, more importantly, trans people who genuinely feel they are a particular gender don't have that choice.


----------



## HoratioCuthbert (Oct 21, 2021)

Raheem said:


> Random interjection.
> 
> The anti-trans narrative hypes up the idea that trans rights are mainly supported by men. But polling shows (yougov, for example) that women are considerably more likely to support trans rights than men. I don't think this is surprising. It seems obvious to me that women have less reason to be invested in the idea that men are men, women are women, and everyone should know their place.
> 
> I say this as a cis man. But, at the same time, I would point out that the idea that "well I would, wouldn't I?" is not statistically supported.


Not surprising, there have always been a number of trans inclusive women on these threads, the dudes always subtly doubling down on what a minority were saying always made it seem like there were none.


----------



## dylans (Oct 21, 2021)

Athos said:


> The meanings of words aren't fixed in time and place.  If enough people use the word 'woman' to include trans women, then that comes to be what it means; that doesn't require anyone to change their biological sex.  And it means that people moving from one category to another can't be seen as purely a matter of their own individualism.
> 
> Similarly, you might well change taxon if definitions of the different taxons changed.
> 
> ...


Words do change, they evolve over time but that's not what is happening here. Here we have an Orwellian attempt to redefine language by a small group of activists who are policing that language change with cries of bigot and trans phobe aimed at intimidating and silencing anyone who objects.

 Words matter and their use has consequences. The redefinition of the word women to include anatomically intact males with penises blurs and erases the concept of woman which for all of human history has been defined as adult human female which is why many women see it as erasure. The consequences go beyond a word, and that's why it leads to absurdities such as men with penises claiming to be lesbians or gay men being told that it is now bigoted to be attracted by male anatomy.  Suddenly the things many of us fought for for decades such as the right for men and women to be same sex attracted is undermined. Now we are told a gay man can have a vagina . Words start to mean nothing.


----------



## HoratioCuthbert (Oct 21, 2021)

dylans said:


> Words do change, they evolve over time but that's not what is happening here. Here we have an Orwellian attempt to redefine language by a small group of activists who are policing that language change with cries of bigot and trans phobe aimed at intimidating and silencing anyone who objects.
> 
> Words matter and their use has consequences. The redefinition of the word women to include anatomically intact males with penises blurs and erases the concept of woman which for all of human history has been defined as adult human female which is why many women see it as erasure. The consequences go beyond a word, and that's why it leads to absurdities such as men with penises claiming to be lesbians or gay men being told that it is now bigoted to be attracted by male anatomy.  Suddenly the things many of us fought for for decades such as the right for men and women to be same sex attracted is undermined. Now we are told a gay man can have a vagina . Words start to mean nothing.


No. Quite the opposite of undermined, more people are coming out than ever before. If anyone is dragging us back into the dark ages it is folk like yersel. As well as being a shit spokesperson for women, we don't really need you piping up for us LGB lot either thanksBYE


----------



## dylans (Oct 21, 2021)

HoratioCuthbert said:


> No. Quite the opposite of undermined, more people are coming out than ever before. If anyone is dragging us back into the dark ages it is folk like yersel. As well as being a shit spokesperson for women, we don't really need you piping up for us LGB lot either thanksBYE


I really don't care what you "need." You don't get to police what I post. I will post what I want and if you don't like it you can fuck yourself.


----------



## Athos (Oct 21, 2021)

dylans said:


> Words do change, they evolve over time but that's not what is happening here. Here we have an Orwellian attempt to redefine language by a small group of activists who are policing that language change with cries of bigot and trans phobe aimed at intimidating and silencing anyone who objects.
> 
> Words matter and their use has consequences. The redefinition of the word women to include anatomically intact males with penises blurs and erases the concept of woman which for all of human history has been defined as adult human female which is why many women see it as erasure. The consequences go beyond a word, and that's why it leads to absurdities such as men with penises claiming to be lesbians or gay men being told that it is now bigoted to be attracted by male anatomy.  Suddenly the things many of us fought for for decades such as the right for men and women to be same sex attracted is undermined. Now we are told a gay man can have a vagina . Words start to mean nothing.



I've already explained that I think it's an error to try to force others to accept a definition they're not ready to, particularly where that's through bullying. But it remains the case that, increasingly, the words 'man' and 'woman' are being widely understood to include trans people.

I'm not sure it's the whole picture to claim that 'woman' has been defined as an adult human female throughout human history. Gender categories have varied over time, place, and context, if, indeed, they've always existed.

It's not that words mean nothing, so much as they mean something you don't want them to. It's like my uncle insisting that 'gay' only means happy!


----------



## frogwoman (Oct 21, 2021)

Love it when a straight bloke tells me how to be a feminist.


----------



## maomao (Oct 21, 2021)

frogwoman said:


> Love it when a straight bloke tells me how to be a feminist.


Well from the evidence on these boards the trans issue is mainly an obsession of middle-aged men.


----------



## frogwoman (Oct 21, 2021)

dylans said:


> I really don't care what you "need." You don't get to police what I post. I will post what I want and if you don't like it you can fuck yourself.



A champion of women's rights speaks


----------



## Kevbad the Bad (Oct 21, 2021)

Everyone has a right to express an opinion on anything, here on urban and elsewhere. It shouldn't matter what your sex, perceived gender, age, sexuality, race or religion* are. What is important is the content of the posts. On a forum with anonymity, even if some people know who is behind the username, that has to be the case.

It is also true that knowing which of those variables apply to which posters may have a bearing on the weight you give to their opinions.

I still reckon it shouldn't matter most of the time, but sometimes it will. No idea how to get around that one.




* feel free to add to this list at your own discretion.


----------



## frogwoman (Oct 21, 2021)

That is true. Trans exclusionary radical feminism seems to involve a disproportionate amount of 'gender critical' men yelling aggressively at women about penises tho.


----------



## HoratioCuthbert (Oct 21, 2021)

frogwoman said:


> That is true. Trans exclusionary radical feminism seems to involve a disproportionate amount of 'gender critical' men yelling aggressively at women about penises tho.


Mind who coined the phrase "THANKS, ANOTHER MAN"


----------



## frogwoman (Oct 21, 2021)

HoratioCuthbert said:


> Mind who coined the phrase "THANKS, ANOTHER MAN"


Ah yeah Graham Linehan, a true feminist shero


----------



## HoratioCuthbert (Oct 21, 2021)

dylans said:


> I really don't care what you "need." You don't get to police what I post. I will post what I want and if you don't like it you can fuck yourself.


Ah wow I didn't realise this was to me I was too busy laughing at Froggy, now I'm ending myself


----------



## frogwoman (Oct 21, 2021)

Kevbad the Bad said:


> What is important is the content of the posts.



 'If you don't like it you can fuck off' 'snowflake' 'virtue signalling' etc, ah yes such top drawer content and high level debate


----------



## dylans (Oct 21, 2021)

frogwoman said:


> 'If you don't like it you can fuck off' 'snowflake' etc, ah yes such top drawer content


That's really not fair. I am not the one telling others they have no right to post


----------



## Raheem (Oct 21, 2021)

maomao said:


> Well from the evidence on these boards the trans issue is mainly an obsession of middle-aged men.


TBF that would go for anything if your evidence was who is posting on u75.


----------



## dylans (Oct 21, 2021)

frogwoman said:


> 'If you don't like it you can fuck off' 'snowflake' 'virtue signalling' etc, ah yes such top drawer content and high level debate


I have NEVER used the term "snowflake" or accused anyone of "virtue signalling" in my entire life. \

"I will post what I want and if you don't like it you can fuck off" is a statement of general principles, applicable everywhere and at all times.   I have the right to my opinion, engage with it, ignore it, hold it in contempt,  but you do not get to tell me I have no right to it.


----------



## IC3D (Oct 21, 2021)

frogwoman said:


> 'If you don't like it you can fuck off' 'snowflake' 'virtue signalling' etc, ah yes such top drawer content and high level debate


If you read back Edie reflected and apologised I see no reason to repeatedly bring it up. Perhaps respect that.


----------



## frogwoman (Oct 21, 2021)

Don't think I told anyone they didn't have the right to post tbh but you crack on


----------



## Steel Icarus (Oct 21, 2021)

_trans people are the real oppressors_


----------



## frogwoman (Oct 21, 2021)

I'm not reading this whole thread so no idea who posted what tbh


----------



## HoratioCuthbert (Oct 21, 2021)

frogwoman said:


> Don't think I told anyone they didn't have the right to post tbh but you crack on


He means me dismissing him as our spokesperson. He's not the first angry man to come on here spouting the LGB alliance website verbatim and I don't think the last one was one of us gays  either.


----------



## ItWillNeverWork (Oct 21, 2021)

Athos said:


> It's like my uncle insisting that 'gay' only means happy!



Wait.. what? You mean it means something else?


----------



## 8ball (Oct 21, 2021)

ItWillNeverWork said:


> Wait.. what? You mean it means something else?



I don't know if you've tried using the word 'gay' with the old meaning, but it's fun because despite what homophobes say, they're really uncomfortable when you do it.


----------



## smokedout (Oct 21, 2021)

dylans said:


> Men are men and women are women because that characteristic is defined by our biology. Am I a bigot if I state that the only vertebrates which change sex during their lifetime are some species of teleost fish? or if I state that the uterus is a feature of the female anatomy of all species of placental and marsupial mammals?
> 
> Can I identify out of my taxon?
> 
> As for knowing our place, it seems to me that it is trans activists who insist a certain identity makes one a man or woman who are reinforcing gender stereotypes. Why does identifying with the features and characteristics associated with the opposite sex turn that person into the opposite sex? Why can't men or women reject the gender stereotypes of what a man and woman means without becoming the other? It seems to me that it is much more radical to state that trans women and trans men are men and women who are gender non conforming within their sex and who reject the gender assumptions and stereotypes associated with that sex. "Trans women are men" is not a statement of bigotry, on the contrary, it a  rejection of toxic male stereotypes that says men must behave a certain way in order to be men.


This is my favourite part of the gender critical man spiel.  Following the angry rants about perverted trans waving their genitals about in front of children and destroying society and how blue haired queer teenagers are really the oppressor class it always ends with why not just be a feminine man eh eh, why not just be a man in a dress eh, why not come and use the male fucking toilets with me eh eh, what's wrong, are you scared pervert?


----------



## Serene (Oct 21, 2021)

frogwoman said:


> Love it when a straight bloke tells me how to be a feminist.


I remember Piers Morgan telling a Woman that she was doing her Feminism wrong 🤣


----------



## Fozzie Bear (Oct 21, 2021)

This lad’s out of his taxon if you ask me.


----------



## HoratioCuthbert (Oct 21, 2021)

Fozzie Bear said:


> This lad’s out of his taxon if you ask me.


I'm using this all week


----------



## frogwoman (Oct 21, 2021)

The ' out of your taxon' thing just reminds me of someone ranting 'ITS ADAM AND EVE NOT ADAM AND STEVE' lol


----------



## elbows (Oct 21, 2021)

One of the more interesting parts of the nihilism piece that was brought up the other day was the reminder that taxonomy and classification efforts were used by colonial powers to impose their narrow views on other cultures, to justify and enable oppression, and all sorts of other stuff that I'm not at all well read enough to actually be attempting to describe properly in this post.

As someone who fancies themselves to be a fan of 'science' etc, some of that shit is bound to be baked into how I see the world and what I might consider to be objective reality. I doubt I can utterly escape that mindset, but I can resort to things like mocking our notions of 'biological reality' given how crude and limited our understanding of matters on that level, 'proven' via scientific methods, actually are at this point. Its not a very rich or impressive version of reality, and adding more layers of classification doesnt really begin to escape the trap, only to excuse it. Or make it seem more sophisticated, a more convincing lie, a new edition of the rigid factoids that may claim to have gotten closer to 'the truth' by being more nuanced, but that can never escape the perils of the narrow and controlled because those are not side effects but rather its core function. A tinpot template for the turgid.


----------



## Serene (Oct 21, 2021)

Serene said:


> I remember Piers Morgan telling a Woman that she was doing her Feminism wrong 🤣


I wasnt being disparaging  LGBT people there. I was disparaging Piers Morgan. I am very much pro LGBT. I was laughing because of the audacity and ignorance of the bigoted imbecile.


----------



## Monkeygrinder's Organ (Oct 21, 2021)

Serene said:


> I wasnt being disparaging about LGBT people there. I was disparaging Piers Morgan. I am very much pro LGBT.



I don't think anyone would think otherwise tbh. Surely if there's one thing we can all come together and agree on, whatever our other differences, it's that Piers Morgan is a massive twat?


----------



## 8ball (Oct 21, 2021)

elbows said:


> One of the more interesting parts of the nihilism piece that was brought up the other day was the reminder that taxonomy and classification efforts were used by colonial powers to impose their narrow views on other cultures, to justify and enable oppression, and all sorts of other stuff that I'm not at all well read enough to actually be attempting to describe properly in this post.
> 
> As someone who fancies themselves to be a fan of 'science' etc, some of that shit is bound to be baked into how I see the world and what I might consider to be objective reality. I doubt I can utterly escape that mindset, but I can resort to things like mocking our notions of 'biological reality' given how crude and limited our understanding of matters on that level, 'proven' via scientific methods, actually are at this point. Its not a very rich or impressive version of reality, and adding more layers of classification doesnt really begin to escape the trap, only to excuse it. Or make it seem more sophisticated, a more convincing lie, a new edition of the rigid factoids that may claim to have gotten closer to 'the truth' by being more nuanced, but that can never escape the perils of the narrow and controlled because those are not side effects but rather its core function. A tinpot template for the turgid.



I like this post.  Classification is something humans do from very early in life (beginning right from the notion of self vs. non-self), and keeping in mind that the territory is something far more complicated and nuanced than our maps is very important.  Being a biologist by training, I find it hard to move from ideas relating to gametes and evolution when thinking of the terms 'male' and 'female', for example (no one here was born as a result of any medium-sized gametes - there was (by cell standards) a quite small one and a very large one in every case, as is the case for every human and every mammal ever).  Also, I see gender as distinct from sex due to largely political/philosophical reasons.

However, it occurred to me that when thinking of adopted children I know, I always use the terms mother, father and child just as I would with biological relationships.  It's just a kind of addendum to the more usual meaning of those words, capturing the most essential and relevant parts of the core meaning of those words.

Was also thinking of a conversation I was listening to about a lesbian couple, one of whom was having a surrogate pregnancy the other of whom was the egg donor.  Both are surely the 'mother' in a kind of biological sense, but their needs will differ when it comes to work maternity cover and practical / administrative stuff of that kind and we need ways of talking about such relationships, which made me see more sense to terms like "birthing parent".

Also, a friend of mine always refers to her Dad (who is a trans woman) as "Dad" (her Dad introduced herself as "Father Of The Bride" at her wedding and did the walk down the aisle stuff etc.  In her FoTB speech she acknowledged that this might be confusing to some at the wedding.  People will have different ways of slicing this up depending on things how old a child was when they transitioned etc.   

Adding /refining / adapting models then allowing things to evolve seems a lot easier to work through than either becoming entrenched in their eternal immutability, or expecting that they can be thrown out altogether in short order.

/cis man navel-gazing


----------



## iona (Oct 21, 2021)

smokedout said:


> perverted trans waving their genitals about in front of children and destroying society


I'm totally confused now tbh. Next time I'm on the bus and someone tells their kid "mind out of that man's way" am I meant to whip my vagina out and demand to be called a woman or not?


----------



## rutabowa (Oct 21, 2021)

8ball said:


> I like this post.  Classification is something humans do from very early in life (beginning right from the notion of self vs. non-self), and keeping in mind that the territory is something far more complicated and nuanced than our maps is very important.  Being a biologist by training, I find it hard to move from ideas relating to gametes and evolution when thinking of the terms 'male' and 'female', for example (no one here was born as a result of any medium-sized gametes - there was (by cell standards) a quite small one and a very large one in every case, as is the case for every human and every mammal ever).  Also, I see gender as distinct from sex due to largely political/philosophical reasons.
> 
> However, it occurred to me that when thinking of adopted children I know, I always use the terms mother, father and child just as I would with biological relationships.  It's just a kind of addendum to the more usual meaning of those words, capturing the most essential and relevant parts of the core meaning of those words.
> 
> ...


Re: being a biologist, thought this article about reworking the school biology curriculum to be gender inclusive might be interesting (it is not my area so I dunno!  But it is a current project in a lot of schools) Gender-Inclusive Biology: A framework in action


----------



## dylans (Oct 21, 2021)

smokedout said:


> This is my favourite part of the gender critical man spiel.  Following the angry rants about perverted trans waving their genitals about in front of children and destroying society and how blue haired queer teenagers are really the oppressor class it always ends with why not just be a feminine man eh eh, why not just be a man in a dress eh, why not come and use the male fucking toilets with me eh eh, what's wrong, are you scared pervert?


My favourite part of the TRA spiel is following the obligatory chanting of the "trans women are women" mantra and being told to go suck their lady dicks, it always ends with someone trying to get us sacked.


----------



## belboid (Oct 21, 2021)

'us'?  Interesting use of the word.


----------



## 8ball (Oct 21, 2021)

rutabowa said:


> Re: being a biologist, thought this article about reworking the school biology curriculum to be gender inclusive might be interesting (it is not my area so I dunno!  But it is a current project in a lot of schools) Gender-Inclusive Biology: A framework in action



A lot of this looks constructive to me (I can't see what argument even homophobes would come up with to biology classes acknowledging same-sex coupling and child-rearing in animals, for example), though in terms of their main thrust <building in levels of nuance at every stage>, my feeling is that science teaching is full of oversimplifications that may need some amendment or refinement later, and that maybe it's better to be open to students about the limitations of what you are teaching - we do things in stages for a reason and teaching general principles before teaching nuances is common to many (all?) areas of education.  

Then the stuff relating to social relations can be kept to a separate subject - I don't personally think that discussion of, say, the difficulties of binary sex categories for intersex athletes is something to be restricted to biology class.  The biological elements are understandable enough for this to be a discussion for everyone.  

I still don't like the term "sex assigned at birth" though (one of their recommended terms).  Always makes it sound like it was picked from a randomised list by a nurse.


----------



## frogwoman (Oct 21, 2021)

dylans said:


> My favourite part of the TRA spiel is following the obligatory chanting of the "trans women are women" mantra and being told to go suck their lady dicks, it always ends with someone trying to get us sacked.


 did a trans activist try to get you sacked?


----------



## seeformiles (Oct 21, 2021)

frogwoman said:


> The ' out of your taxon' thing just reminds me of someone ranting 'ITS ADAM AND EVE NOT ADAM AND STEVE' lol



I prefer the variation “…NOT MADAM AND EVE!” 🙂


----------



## rutabowa (Oct 21, 2021)

8ball said:


> A lot of this looks constructive to me (I can't see what argument even homophobes would come up with to biology classes acknowledging same-sex coupling and child-rearing in animals, for example), though in terms of their main thrust <building in levels of nuance at every stage>, my feeling is that science teaching is full of oversimplifications that may need some amendment or refinement later, and that maybe it's better to be open to students about the limitations of what you are teaching - we do things in stages for a reason and teaching general principles before teaching nuances is common to many (all?) areas of education.
> 
> Then the stuff relating to social relations can be kept to a separate subject - I don't personally think that discussion of, say, the difficulties of binary sex categories for intersex athletes is something to be restricted to biology class.  The biological elements are understandable enough for this to be a discussion for everyone.
> 
> I still don't like the term "sex assigned at birth" though (one of their recommended terms).  Always makes it sound like it was picked from a randomised list by a nur


It is a work in progress for sure. I found it particularly interesting tho as one common anti trans argument is that it "goes against scientific biological reality"  but in fact it seems like actual scientific biological reality is quite a lot more complex than the simple binaries most of us learnt in school.


----------



## HoratioCuthbert (Oct 21, 2021)

dylans said:


> My favourite part of the TRA spiel is following the obligatory chanting of the "trans women are women" mantra and being told to go suck their lady dicks, it always ends with someone trying to get us sacked.


None of this happened here, Smokedout was referring to something _YOU_ actually said.


----------



## NoXion (Oct 21, 2021)

elbows said:


> One of the more interesting parts of the nihilism piece that was brought up the other day was the reminder that taxonomy and classification efforts were used by colonial powers to impose their narrow views on other cultures, to justify and enable oppression, and all sorts of other stuff that I'm not at all well read enough to actually be attempting to describe properly in this post.
> 
> As someone who fancies themselves to be a fan of 'science' etc, some of that shit is bound to be baked into how I see the world and what I might consider to be objective reality. I doubt I can utterly escape that mindset, but I can resort to things like mocking our notions of 'biological reality' given how crude and limited our understanding of matters on that level, 'proven' via scientific methods, actually are at this point. Its not a very rich or impressive version of reality, and adding more layers of classification doesnt really begin to escape the trap, only to excuse it. Or make it seem more sophisticated, a more convincing lie, a new edition of the rigid factoids that may claim to have gotten closer to 'the truth' by being more nuanced, but that can never escape the perils of the narrow and controlled because those are not side effects but rather its core function. A tinpot template for the turgid.


Or you could just keep in mind that classifying something doesn't actually justify anything. Description vs prescription.


----------



## 8ball (Oct 21, 2021)

rutabowa said:


> It is a work in progress for sure. I found it particularly interesting tho as one common anti trans argument is that it "goes against scientific biological reality"  but in fact it seems like *actual scientific biological reality is quite a lot more complex than the simple binaries most of us learnt in school.*



I guess so, in the sense of a more appropriate approach taking account different levels of analysis as described in that link.  I have more trouble with the "sex is not a binary" statement as an unqualified claim, just as I have problems with terms like "born in the wrong body", which I see as relating matters of personal self-understanding and communicating that sense, though in some cases they are conflated with something more empirical.  Even before people were living large parts of their existence on a digital plane (especially younger people, who can flit between avatars for different social situations and locations online), this was an especially easy metaphor to grasp, but while it comes with immediate resonance, it's about about as accurate as the "born this way" slogan as used by gay people, which had a lot of traction but is past its sell-by date both scientifically and socially (notably, few people care about the scientific when it comes to gay people - a sign of greater acceptance).  Likewise, for me, twaw wasn't the best slogan because it was too much of a direct challenge and led to rabbit holes.  As opposed to, say, BLM, which was a slogan which even many racists could agree to in principle, and so served to open up further discussion.

Imo biology teaching has tended to privilege the evolutionary / reproductive angle (as opposed to, say, hormonal or embryological), and also emphasised aspects relevant to the kind of society it was trying to reproduce (hence the thing about same-sex coupling in animals etc. not being mentioned, or, say, that some bacteria that have a lot more than two sexes in a reproductive sense).

Easy for this to then calcify into something akin to heteronormative enforcement, but I don't think that was deliberate, more a case of reflecting society, with any updates to curricula always being scrutinised by Governments of the time.


----------



## rutabowa (Oct 21, 2021)

I guess it is like another way of "decolonising the curriculum"... any conversations that reminds us that school curricula are constructions that replicate and reinforce existing social/political structures, rather than transparent vessels of objective truth, must be a good thing I guess. And hopefully reasons for optimism, as kids currently going through school might be (a bit, gradually) more aware of the constructs.


----------



## dylans (Oct 21, 2021)

HoratioCuthbert said:


> None of this happened here, Smokedout was referring to something _YOU_ actually said.


Nah, fuck it, lifes' too short for this bullshit.


----------



## 8ball (Oct 21, 2021)

rutabowa said:


> I guess it is like another way of "decolonising the curriculum"... any conversations that reminds us that school curricula are constructions that replicate and reinforce existing social/political structures, rather than transparent vessels of objective truth, must be a good thing I guess. And hopefully reasons for optimism, as kids currently going through school might be (a bit, gradually) more aware of the constructs.



Another term I hate! 

Mostly because the curriculum was never "colonised", it was just made that way.
The terms are so leaden, and the slogans so lacklustre - why is there nothing on a par with "Property is theft!" or "No Gods, No Masters!", or "ACAB"?

I'm like an old man shaking his fist at a cloud sometimes.


----------



## Fozzie Bear (Oct 21, 2021)

Meanwhile it appears that "journalist" Andy Ngo who has a consistent record of boosting fascist groups like The Proud Boys is attending the "LGB Alliance" event in London without challenge from other delegates.


----------



## Fozzie Bear (Oct 21, 2021)

I thought, given that there is a tendency to post The Very Worst In Signs on this thread, that I would share this one that I enjoyed on twitter.


----------



## belboid (Oct 21, 2021)

Fozzie Bear said:


> Meanwhile it appears that "journalist" Andy Ngo who has a consistent record of boosting fascist groups like The Proud Boys is attending the "LGB Alliance" event in London without challenge from other delegates.



not even from their trustee and co-founder Kathleen Stock?  I'm shocked.


----------



## rutabowa (Oct 21, 2021)

8ball said:


> Another term I hate!
> 
> Mostly because the curriculum was never "colonised", it was just made that way.
> The terms are so leaden, and the slogans so lacklustre - why is there nothing on a par with "Property is theft!" or "No Gods, No Masters!", or "ACAB"?
> ...


It is not a lack lustre activity for the kids involved at the sharp end of it! And it is much more achievable (ie little by little in real life) than slogans would be.

The phrase "just made that way" has a lot of problems with it when you are talking about something that is an entirely human creation, and also one that has been imposed top down. But i am sure you get that ha.


----------



## SpineyNorman (Oct 21, 2021)

frogwoman said:


> Jesus fucking Christ


Good to see you posting mate!


----------



## 8ball (Oct 21, 2021)

rutabowa said:


> It is not a lack lustre activity for the kids involved at the sharp end of it! And it is much more achievable (ie little by little in real life) than slogans would be.
> 
> The phrase "just made that way" has a lot of problems with it when you are talking about something that is an entirely human creation, and also one that has been imposed top down. But i am sure you get that ha.



Not sure I understand your first para.  But yeah, it was made that way with certain unstated purposes.  I mean that no one came along and colonised it.

Would make sense as "de-colon-ise the curriculum".  Because colons tend to be full of shit.


----------



## rutabowa (Oct 21, 2021)

8ball said:


> Not sure I understand your first para.  But yeah, it was made that way with certain unstated purposes.  I mean that no one came along and colonised it.
> 
> Would make sense as "de-colon-ise the curriculum".  Because colons tend to be full of shit.


First para I just meant: the movement towards/conversation around "decolonising the curriculum" is not just an intellectual exercise, or a slogan: it is actively making the education system a lot more inclusive to those who have historically been overlooked/failed by it... and that is actually very important to a lot of students, they are involved in it. And that is happening right now, to students who are currently in the education system, so it is having concrete benefits right now as well as for the future.

I guess the point of "decolonise" is that the current/past curriculum is inextricably linked to the UK's colonial past. Not that it was literally colonised at any point. As an exhortation I think it is pretty clear what it means tho so it works.


----------



## SpineyNorman (Oct 21, 2021)

dylans said:


> Men are men and women are women because that characteristic is defined by our biology. Am I a bigot if I state that the only vertebrates which change sex during their lifetime are some species of teleost fish? or if I state that the uterus is a feature of the female anatomy of all species of placental and marsupial mammals?
> 
> Can I identify out of my taxon?
> 
> As for knowing our place, it seems to me that it is trans activists who insist a certain identity makes one a man or woman who are reinforcing gender stereotypes. Why does identifying with the features and characteristics associated with the opposite sex turn that person into the opposite sex? Why can't men or women reject the gender stereotypes of what a man and woman means without becoming the other? It seems to me that it is much more radical to state that trans women and trans men are men and women who are gender non conforming within their sex and who reject the gender assumptions and stereotypes associated with that sex. "Trans women are men" is not a statement of bigotry, on the contrary, it a  rejection of toxic male stereotypes that says men must behave a certain way in order to be men.


I must say I'm shocked to see this weirdo taking the cranky bigot position.


----------



## frogwoman (Oct 21, 2021)

HoratioCuthbert said:


> Not surprising, there have always been a number of trans inclusive women on these threads, the dudes always subtly doubling down on what a minority were saying always made it seem like there were none.


Terfy men: We must stop women being silenced! 

Women: something trans supportive

Terfy men: no not like that


----------



## hitmouse (Oct 21, 2021)

8ball said:


> I guess so, in the sense of a more appropriate approach taking account different levels of analysis as described in that link.  I have more trouble with the "sex is not a binary" statement as an unqualified claim, just as I have problems with terms like "born in the wrong body", which I see as relating matters of personal self-understanding and communicating that sense, though in some cases they are conflated with something more empirical.  Even before people were living large parts of their existence on a digital plane (especially younger people, who can flit between avatars for different social situations and locations online), this was an especially easy metaphor to grasp, but while it comes with immediate resonance, it's about about as accurate as the "born this way" slogan as used by gay people, which had a lot of traction but is past its sell-by date both scientifically and socially (notably, few people care about the scientific when it comes to gay people - a sign of greater acceptance).  Likewise, for me, twaw wasn't the best slogan because it was too much of a direct challenge and led to rabbit holes.  As opposed to, say, BLM, which was a slogan which even many racists could agree to in principle, and so served to open up further discussion.


Did you read this one? Seems like it might be your sort of thing:





						Falling star: Countering gender essentialism with sex essentialism
					

Red and Black Leeds on the limitations of both gender essentialism and sex essentialism as a way to understand gender expression and identity.




					libcom.org
				





> It’s easy to see why some explanations of trans people’s choices persist. The dominant narrative in society currently is that genders are a naturally occurring result of innate biological differences. It is assumed these probably came about through evolution, as sexist scientists retrospectively impose our current gender stereotypes on the past, in a Flintstones-style view of history, and conclude that male and female brains developed out of the “natural” roles that our reproductive organs are assumed to have landed us with. In fact gender is a far more recent human invention, but the oppression of women seemingly has to be justified somehow, whether by reference to God, science, or something else. This pop neuroscience can be used to give trans people legitimacy. If men and women really have man-brains and woman-brains, then it’s plausible we could have landed the wrong brain to go with our genitals somehow (or the wrong genitals to go with our brains, depending on your perspective). It seems easier to get a society already invested in gender essentialism to accept that we’ve just been put in the wrong box, than to get people to question everything they thought they knew about men and women. Arguing that the entire system is bullshit and needs to be torn down is a massive task and not going to get us any joy any time soon. It’s easy to see why some trans people prefer a narrative less threatening to the status quo, but this is not inherently part of being trans.


----------



## smokedout (Oct 21, 2021)

Fozzie Bear said:


> Meanwhile it appears that "journalist" Andy Ngo who has a consistent record of boosting fascist groups like The Proud Boys is attending the "LGB Alliance" event in London without challenge from other delegates.




Interesting bunch of exhibitors for a conference to defend LGB people as well.  Not one organisation supporting gay men or bisexuals, only two (maybe 3, don't know who Gilding the Lily are) supporting lesbians, Toby Young's crowd, Conservative Women and the awful Our Duty - who's founder has explicitly supported working with the far right against trans people and is campaigning for the staff at the Tavistock to be jailed.


----------



## 8ball (Oct 21, 2021)

An organisation called Our Duty gives me nausea prior to knowing anything about it whatsoever.
edit:  though I'd have first thought them to be a poppy-shagging type outfit rather than this


----------



## frogwoman (Oct 21, 2021)

dylans said:


> My favourite part of the TRA spiel is following the obligatory chanting of the "trans women are women" mantra and being told to go suck their lady dicks, it always ends with someone trying to get us sacked.


a thing that definitely happened

From that 'our duty' page

Extending the age of "adolescence" in healthcare to *25 years old*.
Nope no way that could go wrong! absolutely not!


----------



## 8ball (Oct 21, 2021)

frogwoman said:


> a thing that definitely happened
> 
> From that 'our duty' page
> 
> ...



Well, for men at least you could argue that adolescence extends into the mid 20s (late 40s in my case), but I suspect some healthcare restriction motives may be involved...


----------



## frogwoman (Oct 22, 2021)

Basically if self described lefties, feminists and progressives are still going along with terf shit in 2021 they have so comprehensively been played and I don't know how much clearer it can get. 'Our duty', 'war on woke', 'gender ideology' and campaigns to repeal the fucking GRA ffs

and frankly I don't know how to keep telling you that the interventions of the gender critical lot are neither wanted or needed by the majority of LGB people who know a right wing and not so thinly veiled homophobic campaign when we see one.  Please stop using us as a shield for your bigotry.


----------



## frogwoman (Oct 22, 2021)

8ball said:


> Well, for men at least you could argue that adolescence extends into the mid 20s (late 40s in my case), but I suspect some healthcare restriction motives may be involved...



But but but, they're trying to protect women!  the possibility of other things related to womens healthcare and sexual healthcare doesn't come into it despite a purely coincidental huge number of Christian fundamentalists being involved in these legal challenges


----------



## smokedout (Oct 22, 2021)

frogwoman said:


> a thing that definitely happened
> 
> From that 'our duty' page
> 
> ...


Within days of the first verdict in Keira Bell's case attempting to ban puberty blockers for under 16s GC groups like Transgender Trend announced they were going to start focussing their campaigns against trans healthcare on 17-24 year olds. It's not really about kids for a lot of them, it's about banning trans healthcare, kids are just the obvious place to start.


----------



## Epona (Oct 22, 2021)

frogwoman said:


> Basically if self described lefties, feminists and progressives are still going along with terf shit in 2021 they have so comprehensively been played and I don't know how much clearer it can get. 'Our duty', 'war on woke', 'gender ideology' and campaigns to repeal the fucking GRA ffs
> 
> and frankly I don't know how to keep telling you that the interventions of the gender critical lot are neither wanted or needed by the majority of LGB people who know a right wing and not so thinly veiled homophobic campaign when we see one.  Please stop using us as a shield for your bigotry.



I think a lot of those that are claiming to be on the left and going along with this (terf shit), if you scratched the surface a bit a lot of them are right wing shitbags at heart, when it comes down to it (in my experience).


----------



## 19force8 (Oct 22, 2021)

Epona said:


> I think a lot of those that are claiming to be on the left and going along with this (terf shit), if you scratched the surface a bit a lot of them are right wing shitbags at heart, when it comes down to it (in my experience).


I wish!

I suppose a lot depends on how you view "the left", but terf-ism seems to have sunk its claws into all parts of it from the PLP/SNP/Green Party to anarchist icon* Helen Steel. We have to accept we have a problem before we can deal with it.

[* not being an anarchist I don't know if they have icons and if they do, whether or not Ms Steel qualifies]

Meanwhile, here's one of Katy's shit cartoons:


----------



## Athos (Oct 22, 2021)

Historically, whilst not always agreeing with their positions, I've had some sympathy for women's concerns.  Increasingly though, whilst I don't doubt the good faith of many of the individual women who express reservations about being required to accept a definition of 'woman' that they don't recognise, it's clear that a very large proportion of the organisations who would call themselves 'gender critical' are, at best, willing to stand alongside fascists and religious fundamentalists, and, at worst, are simply a fig leaf for naked bigotry.


----------



## SpineyNorman (Oct 22, 2021)

I honestly don't understand why obvious bigots like coop and Dylan's are even tolerated on these boards. If it was anyone other than transwomen they'd have been booted off years ago. They're responsible for valued and long term trans posters being made to feel so uncomfortable they don't come on here any more. 

And I think we're to blame too for tolerating it for so long. Everyone needs to have a good look at themselves me included.


----------



## Rob Ray (Oct 22, 2021)

SpineyNorman said:


> I honestly don't understand why obvious bigots like coop and Dylan's are even tolerated on these boards. If it was anyone other than transwomen they'd have been booted off years ago. They're responsible for valued and long term trans posters being made to feel so uncomfortable they don't come on here any more.
> 
> And I think we're to blame too for tolerating it for so long. Everyone needs to have a good look at themselves me included.


Not just trans people, I stopped posting here after one too many rounds of it.


----------



## frogwoman (Oct 22, 2021)

smokedout said:


> Within days of the first verdict in Keira Bell's case attempting to ban puberty blockers for under 16s GC groups like Transgender Trend announced they were going to start focussing their campaigns against trans healthcare on 17-24 year olds. It's not really about kids for a lot of them, it's about banning trans healthcare, kids are just the obvious place to start.


Keira Bell is an anti vaxxer as well so, there's that.

 absolute suckers.


----------



## frogwoman (Oct 22, 2021)

Rob Ray said:


> Not just trans people, I stopped posting here after one too many rounds of it.


I'm still feeling pissed about pointing the links out between terf shit and the far right a couple years ago with details and sources to back it up etc and getting accused of smearing people with guilt by association tactics, identity twitter politics, ignoring peoples legitimate fears etc


----------



## SpineyNorman (Oct 22, 2021)

The idea that the bigots aren't doing identity politics is fucking ridiculous too. If your politics involve policing the boundaries of an identity like Dylans and Edie have been doing recently on this thread guess what that says about your politics? And saying you won't listen to transwomen because they're not really women, what do you recon that is?

Bigots and their useful idiots.


----------



## HoratioCuthbert (Oct 22, 2021)

SpineyNorman said:


> The idea that the bigots aren't doing identity politics is fucking ridiculous too. If your politics involve policing the boundaries of an identity like Dylans and Edie have been doing recently on this thread guess what that says about your politics? And saying you won't listen to transwomen because they're not really women, what do you recon that is?
> 
> Bigots and their useful idiots.


I've never seen anything more flat out idpol than folk screaming about entrance to the female class. Although it did bring us the very amusing spectacle of male trots using the phrase "women's voices" a lot, some light relief indeed.


ETA: Well a certain kind of trot, I don't want to shit on all of them, some of them are sound ha


----------



## HoratioCuthbert (Oct 22, 2021)

frogwoman said:


> Basically if self described lefties, feminists and progressives are still going along with terf shit in 2021 they have so comprehensively been played and I don't know how much clearer it can get. 'Our duty', 'war on woke', 'gender ideology' and campaigns to repeal the fucking GRA ffs
> 
> and frankly I don't know how to keep telling you that the interventions of the gender critical lot are neither wanted or needed by the majority of LGB people who know a right wing and not so thinly veiled homophobic campaign when we see one.  Please stop using us as a shield for your bigotry.


You would think listening to some that the reason we can't stomach the LGB alliance is because the PRIDE CENTRAL COMMITTEE ORDERED US TO QUEER GENDER!


----------



## HoratioCuthbert (Oct 22, 2021)

SpineyNorman said:


> I honestly don't understand why obvious bigots like coop and Dylan's are even tolerated on these boards. If it was anyone other than transwomen they'd have been booted off years ago. They're responsible for valued and long term trans posters being made to feel so uncomfortable they don't come on here any more.
> 
> And I think we're to blame too for tolerating it for so long. Everyone needs to have a good look at themselves me included.


This.


----------



## frogwoman (Oct 22, 2021)

HoratioCuthbert said:


> You would think listening to some that the reason we can't stomach the LGB alliance is because the PRIDE CENTRAL COMMITTEE ORDERED US TO QUEER GENDER!


Protocols of the elders of Brighton


----------



## hitmouse (Oct 22, 2021)

I mean, trying my best to be a boring centrist about it, I suppose it's worth making a clear distinction between when we're discussing stuff that u75 posters have said (or supported) and discussing stuff that's taking place off u75? Like, my reaction whenever someone brings up some kids with a sign saying "suck my dick" or whatever is a bit like "so what, no-one on this thread is defending or supporting that so what relevance does it have?", so similarly I can kind of see why people on the more GC side of the argument would kind of go "fuck off, I've never accepted money from the Alliance Defending Freedom/praised Tommy Robinson/spoken at a Heritage Foundation panel/gone on Tucker Carlson/etc, so why are you bringing it up here?"
And to be clear, like I don't think those things are the same, I think that Richard Spencer's journal Radix republishing stuff about "the TERF to dissident right pipeline" or gender criticals submitting a document to the UN that's co-signed by the Heritage Foundation is politically important and significant in a way that some daft kids with a shitty sign, or indeed mainstream neoliberal groups funding mainstream neoliberal pro-LGBT advocacy, isn't. Dunno how to square this one, really.


----------



## Sue (Oct 22, 2021)

Also I'm really not trying to stir things up but am still unclear about what people on here mean when they use the terms 'TERF' and 'gender critical' as they seem to mean different things to different people. (IIRC, I did ask this ages ago and there didn't seem to be a clear view/agreement on what these terms mean which makes any kind of debate using them tricky. )

I mean, on the face of it being critical of gender and the stereotypes and expectations and perceptions that go with it seems like a good thing. 

And surely challenging those stereotype and expectations and perceptions should be something both trans and non-trans people can agree on? I mean if we're saying a 'woman can be like THIS and THIS and THIS and can do THAT and THAT and THAT' that's surely much better for everyone involved than saying 'a woman is like THIS and can do THAT.'

But people here seem to see it as a very negative thing.  So I'm obviously really misunderstanding what it means..?


----------



## frogwoman (Oct 22, 2021)

Difference between being 'gender critical' in a political sense, as in supporting the movement termed 'gender critical feminism' by it's supporters, and being critical of gender tho 

Kind of like the difference between supporting democracy in Korea and supporting the DPRK


----------



## hitmouse (Oct 22, 2021)

Sue said:


> Also I'm really not trying to stir things up but am still unclear about what people on here mean when they use the terms 'TERF' and 'gender critical' as they seem to mean different things to different people. (IIRC, I did ask this ages ago and there didn't seem to be a clear view/agreement on what these terms mean which makes any kind of debate using them tricky. )
> 
> I mean, on the face of it being critical of gender and the stereotypes and expectations and perceptions that go with it seems like a good thing.
> 
> ...


Yeah, I would usually tend to use it in quotation marks or implied quotation marks, I suppose I'm mostly just using it to refer to people who would use the term to describe themselves? Basically people usually tend to not like being called TERFs or anti-trans or whatever so I'm willing to use their preferred terminology, but yeah, I definitely agree that you can, and should, be critical of gender, without signing up to what the contemporary Gender Critical movement is? I suppose a bit like the difference between being a communist and being a Communist, perhaps?
edit: oh snap


----------



## Sue (Oct 22, 2021)

frogwoman said:


> Difference between being 'gender critical' in a political sense, as in supporting the movement termed 'gender critical feminism' by it's supporters, and being critical of gender tho
> 
> Kind of like the difference between supporting democracy in Korea and supporting the DPRK


Okay, I'd find it really helpful if you (not just frogwoman, anyone helpful enough to offer their thoughts!) could explicitly define the terms?

What does being 'gender critical in a political sense' mean?

What is 'gender critical feminism'?

And if I'm a feminist who's critical of gender is that different/perceived to be different than being a gender-critical feminist?  (Sorry if this is really dim, I am trying to understand! )

ETA And are feminists in general not critical of gender?


----------



## HoratioCuthbert (Oct 22, 2021)

smokedout said:


> How do you know who I assume is in opposition to me? I am critical of gender, so are probably most trans people - and in fact for a long time I was reluctant to name the anti-trans movement Gender Critical on those grounds.  But that's what they call themselves and sorry I'm not going to say Gender Critical except teuchter and anyone who is critical of gender but supports trans rights because that would be fucking ridiculous.  If someone articulates they support trans rights they are clearly not in opposition to me.  If someone describes themselves as gender critical but supportive of trans rights they are not in opposition to me.  If someone describes themselves as gender critical and starts ranting on about mutilated bodies or trans people erasing gays and lesbians then they probably are in opposition to me.  I don't actually find it very difficult, I don't really understand why you do or what purpose it serves to try and deny trans people from being able to name the movement that is opposed to us.  In fact I think it is you who is making assumptions about what I believe or how I might categorise someone's views.


 Sue, here's one post explaining some differences.


----------



## HoratioCuthbert (Oct 22, 2021)

hitmouse said:


> That's not what people are actually saying, though, is it? Like this is what smokedout said:
> 
> I don't think that stuff is just reducible to "finding a way to deal with dysphoria that involved downplaying gender rather than essentialising it". I don't care how people deal with their dysphoria, I wish them good luck in whatever works best for them, but that's not the same as working politically with Posie Parker and the Christian right (if those even count as two separate things).
> 
> Depends how you define gender critical, innit. Red and Black Leeds, Gender Nihilism, bleedin' Baedan and all that lot are all clearly critical of gender. But if you define it as "stuff floating around in the LGB Alliance/Women's Place/Posie Parker/Hands Across The Aisle/Women’s Liberation Front swamp", then no, I'm not sure there can be.


This post from Hitmouse also quite helpful
(I dunno if you can click on it to see what the replies are to, otherwise it won't read well

Eta if you click on "hitmouse" the post is a lot clearer


----------



## frogwoman (Oct 22, 2021)

Sue said:


> Okay, I'd find it really helpful if you (not just frogwoman, anyone helpful enough to offer their thoughts!) could explicitly define the terms?
> 
> What does being 'gender critical in a political sense' mean?
> 
> ...


I'm not greatest expert on these things as I'm not trans tbh but my understanding is: 

'Terfs' = my understanding of it was 'terfs' used to mean old radical 'second wave' feminists from the 70s who had reactionary positions on trans issues and often typical radical feminist  views on stuff like sex work, surrogacy, etc which includes advocating the use of the 'Nordic Model' for sex work etc. A lot of these were Lesbian Separatists ie wanting to live without men etc. Think of people like Sheila Jeffrey's and Cathy Brennan and the like  

As some radical feminists become more trans inclusive (while accepting the other positions are still controversial) the word become popularised as meaning a transphobic feminist, 

But now the word just gets used to mean any transphobe not necessarily a feminist or a woman (Linehan is described as a terf and he is not a feminist in any meaningful sense) 

Gender Critical feminism is related to but different to the classical terfs in the strict sense, not only including radical feminists but it also people who are overly focused on trans people as opposed to other feminist issues, so like LGB alliance, and indeed those who haven't been involved in feminist causes at all up to now. Some of the work Mallory Moore has done on trans safety network and a few others go in depth into this ideology, and smokedout posts are really worth reading


----------



## frogwoman (Oct 22, 2021)

Sue said:


> ?
> 
> And if I'm a feminist who's critical of gender is that different/perceived to be different than being a gender-critical feminist?  (Sorry if this is really dim, I am trying to understand! )
> 
> ETA And are feminists in general not critical of gender?


Of course it is different, most feminists including trans feminists are critical of gender ime but that is very different to being 'Gender Critical'


----------



## Sue (Oct 22, 2021)

HoratioCuthbert said:


> Sue, here's one post explaining some differences.


Very helpful, thanks. So do we need to start saying Gender Critical or gender critical to mean different things? (The former being the political movement, the latter being critical of gender?) I guess I just see a lot of common ground between trans folks and gender critical feminists but all this seems to be being lost in some of the unhelpful shit that's happening on both 'sides'.


----------



## hitmouse (Oct 22, 2021)

I think one thing that distinguishes "Gender Critical Feminism" from feminists who are critical of gender would be that I think most GCers would say that Gender Ideology is a thing, and they're against Gender Ideology, but other feminists, such as Finn McKay, would disagree that Gender Ideology is a thing any more than, say, gay ideology, is:








						Engender blog | F-words: Finn McKay on gender ideology
					





					www.engender.org.uk


----------



## Knotted (Oct 22, 2021)

Sue said:


> Also I'm really not trying to stir things up but am still unclear about what people on here mean when they use the terms 'TERF' and 'gender critical' as they seem to mean different things to different people. (IIRC, I did ask this ages ago and there didn't seem to be a clear view/agreement on what these terms mean which makes any kind of debate using them tricky. )
> 
> I mean, on the face of it being critical of gender and the stereotypes and expectations and perceptions that go with it seems like a good thing.
> 
> ...



Just like there isn't a TRA central command with an official gender identity theory, there isn't a TERF central command with official gender critical theory. It's complicated. I think Dylans' posts were paint by numbers gender critical theory though not all who call themselves gender critical would agree with all of it or without the nuance. Of course being critical of how gender is used (eg. gender) roles is the part of it that a lot people who would reject the trans exclusionary side of it can get behind.


----------



## Sue (Oct 22, 2021)

Knotted said:


> Just like there isn't a TRA central command with an official gender identity theory, there isn't a TERF central command with official gender critical theory. It's complicated. I think Dylans' posts were paint by numbers gender critical theory though not all who call themselves gender critical would agree with all of it or without the nuance. Of course being critical of how gender is used (eg. gender) roles is the part of it that a lot people who would reject the trans exclusionary side of it can get behind.


Sure, it's complicated which is why it's even more important to define (on here at least) what our terms mean?


----------



## HoratioCuthbert (Oct 22, 2021)

Sue said:


> Very helpful, thanks. So do we need to start saying Gender Critical or gender critical to mean different things? (The former being the political movement, the latter being critical of gender?) I guess I just see a lot of common ground between trans folks and gender critical feminists but all this seems to be being lost in some of the unhelpful shit that's happening on both 'sides'.


It's complicated because the phrase Gender Critical is being used as a courtesy to the movement as calling people TERFS gets folks backs up. But I think many posting here have gone out of their way to explain the differences, and explain why we ourselves are using the phrase "Gender Critical". I dunno what more can be done on urban at least, on this side of things.


----------



## Sue (Oct 22, 2021)

HoratioCuthbert said:


> It's complicated because the phrase Gender Critical is being used as a courtesy to the movement as calling people TERFS gets folks backs up. But I think many posting here have gone out of their way to explain the differences, and explain why we ourselves are using the phrase "Gender Critical". I dunno what more can be done on urban at least, on this side of things.


The caps help clarify! Further to frogwoman's point above, 'transphobe' seems more accurate than 'TERF'?


----------



## frogwoman (Oct 22, 2021)

Kind of although some 'original' terfs are involved in 'gender critical' stuff, janice raymond Sheila jeffreys Julia long for instance. I think jeffreys has spoken at some LGB alliance events 

Honestly though the word terf gets used interchangeably with transphobe anyway it's not accurate in a strict sense but it isn't going to stop people doing it lol


----------



## bimble (Oct 22, 2021)

hitmouse said:


> I think one thing that distinguishes "Gender Critical Feminism" from feminists who are critical of gender would be that I think most GCers would say that Gender Ideology is a thing, and they're against Gender Ideology, but other feminists, such as Finn McKay, would disagree that Gender Ideology is a thing any more than, say, gay ideology, is:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Coincidence, they just a couple of minutes ago tweeted this. It’s a little thread.



It does end up with a very feeble point imo though, on something which I think deserves better as it’s where (I think) a lot of the trouble has come from, by saying that GCs might disagree but everybody has a gender identity, it’s just you might not notice yours if it’s a cis one. I don’t feel this (gender identity) is something worth fighting about now but do think that last post in the thread is a pretty flimsy way of attempting to delegitimise the question tbh.


----------



## Sue (Oct 22, 2021)

bimble said:


> Coincidence, they just a couple of minutes ago tweeted this. It’s a little thread.
> 
> 
> 
> It does end up with a very feeble point imo though, on something which I think deserves better as it’s where (I think) a lot of the trouble has come from, by saying that GCs might disagree but everybody has a gender identity, it’s just you might not notice yours if it’s a cis one. I don’t feel this (gender identity) is something worth fighting about now but do think that last post in the thread is a pretty flimsy way of attempting to delegitimise the question tbh.



I think this is interesting (from the twitter thread mentioned):

"Gender identity is term to describe internal sense of self as boy/girl woman/man = masculine/feminine. As we live in & are socialised into fiercly binary gendered society, be rare if ppl grew up without this sense of themselves. We are literally schooled into it from birth."

I mean I really don't have that sense of myself and wonder if that's as rare as Finn Mackay believes? I am conscious of my gender in terms of dealing with gender stereotyping etc but that's not about me, it's about other people/society.

(Of course it's important for many people especially when there's a conflict between how they feel and how they're perceived by others.)


----------



## frogwoman (Oct 22, 2021)

I rather think the identity aspect is a bit of a red herring tbh when you have people talking about repealing the GRA and aspects of the equality act, wanting to make medical transition impossible etc


----------



## smokedout (Oct 22, 2021)

HoratioCuthbert said:


> It's complicated because the phrase Gender Critical is being used as a courtesy to the movement as calling people TERFS gets folks backs up. But I think many posting here have gone out of their way to explain the differences, and explain why we ourselves are using the phrase "Gender Critical". I dunno what more can be done on urban at least, on this side of things.



I supported ditching Terf and adopting Gender Critical partly because I think calling people what they want to be called is generally fair enough and polite and also because radical feminists only make up a very small part of the Gender Critical movement now though.  In retrospect though I think it might have been a mistake because it's become a pathway of radicalisation - someone sees an angry annoying queer kid ranting about Gender Criticals on twitter and thinks I'm critical of gender I wonder what they've got to say.  So they end up on mumsnet and being bombarded with misinformation and basically the results of a half decade long campaign to scour the internet looking for anything that presents trans people in a bad light and before they know where they are they're dancing about in the street singing about penises and have lost all their friends because they never shut up about the upcoming trans apocalypse.


----------



## Knotted (Oct 22, 2021)

Sue said:


> Sure, it's complicated which is why it's even more important to define (on here at least) what our terms mean?



Well here's my attempt. It encompasses the following beliefs:

1) Gender is a (patriarchal) social construct
         1a) Ergo there is no such thing as an innate gender identity
2) Sex is real and immutable
         2a) Sex/gender transition is meaningless
         2b) The terms "man" and "woman" are clear cut biological terms (with the caveat that there is no difference between "male" and "female" brains)
3) Sex based rights are either central to feminism or a crucial component
         3a) Trans rights activists are trying to undermine 1) and 2) and therefore 3)
                   3aa) The definition of "man" and crucially "woman" are under threat
4) Children should be educated to understand 1) and 2)
          4a) Trans rights activists are miseducating our children leading to many of them identifying as trans
                      4aa) Lesbians are being erased by the trans agenda as it effects female children

I think that's the structure of it. Much of it is not particularly contentious but it gets more contentious as you get into the supposed corollaries and not everyone who calls themselves gender critical will agree with all of that.


----------



## Sue (Oct 22, 2021)

smokedout said:


> I supported ditching Terf and adopting Gender Critical partly because I think calling people what they want to be called is generally fair enough and polite and also because radical feminists only make up a very small part of the Gender Critical movement now though.  In retrospect though I think it might have been a mistake because it's become a pathway of radicalisation - someone sees an angry annoying queer kid ranting about Gender Criticals on twitter and thinks I'm critical of gender I wonder what they've got to say.  So they end up on mumsnet and being bombarded with misinformation and basically the results of a half decade long campaign to scour the internet looking for anything that presents trans people in a bad light and before they know where they are they're dancing about in the street singing about penises and have lost all their friends because they never shut up about the upcoming trans apocalypse.


Yes, I agree. (Although I'm not sure that dancing in the street singing about penises is _always_ a negative thing...? )


----------



## HoratioCuthbert (Oct 22, 2021)

smokedout said:


> I supported ditching Terf and adopting Gender Critical partly because I think calling people what they want to be called is generally fair enough and polite and also because radical feminists only make up a very small part of the Gender Critical movement now though.  In retrospect though I think it might have been a mistake because it's become a pathway of radicalisation - someone sees an angry annoying queer kid ranting about Gender Criticals on twitter and thinks I'm critical of gender I wonder what they've got to say.  So they end up on mumsnet and being bombarded with misinformation and basically the results of a half decade long campaign to scour the internet looking for anything that presents trans people in a bad light and before they know where they are they're dancing about in the street singing about penises and have lost all their friends because they never shut up about the upcoming trans apocalypse.


I agree and it is obviously causing confusion  on here as well, I'm stuck as to what labels would be more useful though. I would call the GC movement transphobes but I don't want to start a riot every 2 seconds


----------



## smokedout (Oct 22, 2021)

Sue said:


> I think this is interesting (from the twitter thread mentioned):
> 
> "Gender identity is term to describe internal sense of self as boy/girl woman/man = masculine/feminine. As we live in & are socialised into fiercly binary gendered society, be rare if ppl grew up without this sense of themselves. We are literally schooled into it from birth."
> 
> ...



The concept of gender identity came about because of John Money's awful bodged experiment trying to raise someone born physically male as a girl after they had genital surgery due to an accident (it didn't work and they ended up committing suicide) and early research into intersex kids.  Basically a lot of children with DSDs, where physical sex may not be clear, express a gender identity - as in articulating themselves as a boy or girl, or articulating a desire to be a boy or girl - which is not always inline with chromosonal sex, usually at about 2/3 years old and it tends to remain stable after that.

So I think it's really difficult to quantify in people whose physical sex is unambiguous and who were raised in the gender that is congruent with their physical sex.  You can't really know how you would feel if someone had unknowingly to you carried out surgery on you when you were a baby and then decided raised you as a boy - which is what still happens to some intersex kids.  And it's likely, as with most things involving humans, that people experience gender identity to a greater and lesser extent and that it's mediated by the society and culture they live in.  But the fact there's millions of trans people in the world, often determined to live that way despite hardship and even criminalisation, I think really provides objective evidence that something is going on.  And also, given how many trans people opt to change their bodies through either surgery or hormones that perhaps it should have become known as a sex identity, rather than it becoming enmeshed with gender stereotypes which are a very different thing.


----------



## HoratioCuthbert (Oct 22, 2021)

To add: i should have said "calling them TERFS or Transphobes gets peoples backs up" as that's what I meant really.


----------



## Sue (Oct 22, 2021)

Thanks to everyone for their replies btw, they're really helpful. I know you must be sick to the back teeth of explaining this so I do really appreciate it and I'm sorry I'm being so thick. I guess I just find it really depressing how polarised and toxic the debate -- in general -- has got. I just wish we could concentrate on the things we can all agree on and go from there -- like the 'no-one should be subjected to physical or sexual violence and, if they are, should have somewhere safe to go' principle mentioned upthread and then look at how that can be achieved.


----------



## HoratioCuthbert (Oct 22, 2021)

Sue said:


> I think this is interesting (from the twitter thread mentioned):
> 
> "Gender identity is term to describe internal sense of self as boy/girl woman/man = masculine/feminine. As we live in & are socialised into fiercly binary gendered society, be rare if ppl grew up without this sense of themselves. We are literally schooled into it from birth."
> 
> ...


Here would you reckon if someone kept telling you you were a man, would you get any sort of sense that you were being told something that clashed with your sense of self? Not a dig, genuine question as I'm really unsure about this. I think we do internalise this schooling a lot IFYSWIM. 
I think that I would do, anyway. 

As I type this I have 3 crazy boys banging on my window posing with sweetie cigarettes, or something, my wording probs all to pot lol


----------



## Sue (Oct 22, 2021)

HoratioCuthbert said:


> Here would you reckon if someone kept telling you you were a man, would you get any sort of sense that you were being told something that clashed with your sense of self? Not a dig, genuine question as I'm really unsure about this. I think we do internalise this schooling a lot IFYSWIM.
> I think that I would do, anyway.
> 
> As I type this I have 3 crazy boys banging on my window posing with sweetie cigarettes, or something, my wording probs all to pot lol


I guess the thing is I don't really have that sense of self. I'm a women and I've been working in a very male-dominated field for the last 30 years and most of my friends are male. I don't really do any of the things women are 'meant' to do/like and the only time I really think about my gender is when I get some shit because of it. I don't perceive it as positive or negative but if i had to perceive something, it would be more neutral verging on a bit negative I guess. But that's more a societal expectation/stereotyping thing. 

(And if someone kept telling me I was a man, I'd really be 🤷‍♀️. I just don't think it's very important which is maybe a luxury I have that many others don't.)

Sweetie cigarettes! Who knew they were even still a thing!


----------



## HoratioCuthbert (Oct 22, 2021)

Sue said:


> I guess the thing is I don't really have that sense of self. I'm a women and I've been working in a very male-dominated field for the last 30 years and most of my friends are male. I don't really do any of the things women are 'meant' to do/like and the only time I really think about my gender is when I get some shit because of it. I don't perceive it as positive or negative but if i had to perceive something, it would be more neutral verging on a bit negative I guess. But that's more a societal expectation/stereotyping thing.
> 
> (And if someone kept telling me I was a man, I'd really be 🤷‍♀️. I just don't think it's very important which is maybe a luxury I have that many others don't.)
> 
> Sweetie cigarettes! Who knew they were even still a thing!


I dunno where they got them from!


----------



## hitmouse (Oct 22, 2021)

On the "does everyone have a gender identity" thing, it is the case that some people nowadays are describing themselves as agender: 








						What It Means to Identify as Agender
					

Thinking beyond the binary.




					www.teenvogue.com
				



Whether being agender counts as having a gender identity or the lack of one is... tricky question, I suppose, a bit like trying to say whether black and white are colours.
On the working together on stuff we can, or should, all be able to agree on, bit, Sisters Uncut have done some really good positive work, like the campaign to save Doncaster Women's Aid is a story that should be better known: 








						Sisters Uncut: This is how we know we can win
					

Last Thursday, sisters in Doncaster celebrated the opening of a new domestic violence service. Well, not so much a new service, but the revival of a service that had been forced to close - and that they fought to bring back. This didn't happen overnight, and it didn't happen without a whole...




					www.sistersuncut.org


----------



## HoratioCuthbert (Oct 22, 2021)

Sue said:


> I guess the thing is I don't really have that sense of self. I'm a women and I've been working in a very male-dominated field for the last 30 years and most of my friends are male. I don't really do any of the things women are 'meant' to do/like and the only time I really think about my gender is when I get some shit because of it. I don't perceive it as positive or negative but if i had to perceive something, it would be more neutral verging on a bit negative I guess. But that's more a societal expectation/stereotyping thing.
> 
> (And if someone kept telling me I was a man, I'd really be 🤷‍♀️. I just don't think it's very important which is maybe a luxury I have that many others don't.)
> 
> Sweetie cigarettes! Who knew they were even still a thing!


I don't fit comfortably into these roles either, never have, and often feel a bit of an outsider when in a large group of women. So I'm not trying to place any sort of importance on it if you see what I mean, but I do think if someone kept telling me I was man, it would be really jarring.


----------



## smokedout (Oct 22, 2021)

Sue said:


> Thanks to everyone for their replies btw, they're really helpful. I know you must be sick to the back teeth of explaining this so I do really appreciate it and I'm sorry I'm being so thick. I guess I just find it really depressing how polarised and toxic the debate -- in general -- has got. I just wish we could concentrate on the things we can all agree on and go from there -- like the 'no-one should be subjected to physical or sexual violence and, if they are, should have somewhere safe to go' principle mentioned upthread and then look at how that can be achieved.



I'm not sure what I said about gender identity would necessarily be supported by the non-binary zoomers btw, who seem to have almost embraced gender to destroy it.  I can understand why people would ridicule the idea of hundreds of different genders, or people being one gender one day and a different one the next, but I think another way of looking at it is that this is gender being turned into the parody it deserves to become - and I suspect there's some awareness of that amongst the younger generation of Queers and Feminists.  The gender binary cannot survive such a transition, gender just becomes a shorthand word for a personal style, or expression, which can be cast off and altered at will (and of course marketed to).  I think we are seeing the dismantling of gender as a system of political control in favour of a marketable personal identity/brand - it's happening within capitalism after all - but I don't think that necessarily means it's not progress or something that can't be built on for more radical ends.


----------



## Sue (Oct 22, 2021)

hitmouse said:


> On the "does everyone have a gender identity" thing, it is the case that some people nowadays are describing themselves as agender:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Or is it just saying 'fuck gender stereotypes'? Because I'm all for that! (And hey, I'm such a hipster I was doing it before it was even a word...) 



hitmouse said:


> On the working together on stuff we can, or should, all be able to agree on, bit, Sisters Uncut have done some really good positive work, like the campaign to save Doncaster Women's Aid is a story that should be better known:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Great stuff!


----------



## Sue (Oct 22, 2021)

smokedout said:


> I'm not sure what I said about gender identity would necessarily be supported by the non-binary zoomers btw, who seem to have almost embraced gender to destroy it.  I can understand why people would ridicule the* idea of hundreds of different genders, or people being one gender one day and a different one the next,* but I think another way of looking at it is that this is gender being turned into the parody it deserves to become - and I suspect there's some awareness of that amongst the younger generation of Queers and Feminists.  The gender binary cannot survive such a transition, gender just becomes a shorthand word for a personal style, or expression, which can be cast off and altered at will (and of course marketed to).  I think we are seeing the dismantling of gender as a system of political control in favour of a marketable personal identity/brand - it's happening within capitalism after all - but I don't think that necessarily means it's not progress or something that can't be built on for more radical ends.


Personally I think rather than having all these genders, we should just get rid off them. That makes more sense to me than the emboldened bit above.


----------



## Knotted (Oct 22, 2021)

HoratioCuthbert said:


> I dunno where they got them from!



You can order them online I think. They're great IMO. They don't have the little red "burning" bit at the end anymore - they're just candy sticks now.


----------



## HoratioCuthbert (Oct 22, 2021)

Knotted said:


> You can order them online I think. They're great IMO. They don't have the little red "burning" bit at the end anymore - they're just candy sticks now.


"I think"


----------



## Sue (Oct 22, 2021)

Knotted said:


> You can order them online I think. They're great IMO. They don't have the little red "burning" bit at the end anymore - they're just candy sticks now.


I used to love them a a kid, just surprised you can still get them. (I'm tempted to get some for my nephew but my sister would have my guts for garters. And probably rightly so.)


----------



## Knotted (Oct 22, 2021)

HoratioCuthbert said:


> "I think"



I occasionally get given them as a present. You can also get them in traditional sweet shops as well.


----------



## bimble (Oct 22, 2021)

smokedout said:


> given how many trans people opt to change their bodies through either surgery or hormones that perhaps it should have become known as a sex identity, rather than it becoming enmeshed with gender stereotypes which are a very different thing.


This has sort of blown my mind.


----------



## smokedout (Oct 22, 2021)

Sue said:


> Personally I think rather than having all these genders, we should just get rid off them. That makes more sense to me than the emboldened bit above.



I agree, but maybe this is how it happens.  Or maybe things will just be different but equally oppressive.  I think there's an element of reform vs revolution in all this and that is one of the many reasons for the ferocity of this debate on the left (or at least a perception from older generations of lefties that that's what this is about).  Nothing else has worked to get rid of gender though, and I don't buy these nostalgic claims of gender breaking down in the 70/80s because Duran Duran wore eye liner and there were less pink toys on sale.  It was still controversial back then for a woman with children to have a fucking job.  And maybe that describes what I'm trying to get at.  At the peak of industrial capitalism at the beginning of the last century healthcare for working class people was so bad, and child mortality so high that young working class women had to be kept virtually permanently pregnant or nursing just to ensure an adequate supply of future workers - and as such gender roles were very much attached to physical sex.  Now that's no longer the case, and capital has recognised the advantages of extracting the surplus labour from two members of each family unit instead of just one, gender is no longer necessary to enforce a womans role as an (unpaid reproductive) worker.  And as it no longer needs the attachment to physical sex gender is reforming as a way to dictate your role as a consumer, uncoupled from sex, and which to me seems much less stable.  Hopefully.


----------



## smokedout (Oct 22, 2021)

HoratioCuthbert said:


> "I think"


Out of stock.

Like the 5 star review though:

Alexander P.
_5.0 out of 5 stars_        A gateway candy...   
Reviewed in the United States on 4 April 2016
Verified Purchase
         These are the old-school candy cigarettes, although they don't SAY "cigarette" anywhere on the box because hey, let's face it, these are a gateway candy. You start off on these and eventually you're onto bubble gum cigars, Big League Chew, and then, heroin. These are the good-tasting ones, too, not those chalky nasty ones that came about at one point. And you can't beat the price--24 packs for $9! A hell of a lot cheaper than a real pack and looks just as cool rolled up in the sleeve of my grease-stained white t-shirt.

134 people found this helpful


----------



## 8ball (Oct 22, 2021)

bimble said:


> This has sort of blown my mind.



I think it’s bang on.


----------



## smokedout (Oct 22, 2021)

bimble said:


> This has sort of blown my mind.



Perhaps I should try and expand on it a bit then, although I'm trying to articulate this for the first time so bear with me if I end up talking shit.

I think most people have an inherent understanding of what sex they are, which they have understod since infancy and they are largely at peace with. They may not like aspects of their body, or even aspects of their sex such as menstruation, and they certainly might not like the gendered assumptions that come attached to their sex, but broadly they don't seek to change anything, don't hate their genitals, can function adequately sexually within their sex, and don't deeply desire, or feel they should have the body of the opposite sex.   For the old school mumsnet approved transsexuals however that's not the case.  The classic 'transsexual' child often doesn't just claim to want to be the other sex, but insists they are the other sex, often from as early as they can articulate it, and they keep insisting it until they become gender critical shills or die.   I think it's probably more accurate to describe this as sex dysphoria rather than gender dysphoria - they are at odds with their bodies, not their social role, and this often led a lot of people to look for neurological or biological explanations for this that are rightly read as regressive - having the wrong body for your brain etc.  I think people sought to medicalise their condition as away of deflecting from the shame they felt at being that way - it's not my fault, I was born this way - and a way to seek social approval for the same reason the emerging LGB movement sometimes made similar claims.

Under this model, and due to the hostile social conditions of the time, it's likely only the most sex dysphoric would go as far as transition - I mentioned upthread the first two trans women I ever met who told me not to transition unless I was suicidal and felt I really couldn't live another day as a man. But this model didn't really work for a lot of people, and felt like not just surrender to transphobia but also a form of gatekeeping from the older 'true trans' population.  Sex dysphoria can be of differering strengths, and manifest in different ways and this was always the case, and what happened is people who didn't feel compelled to physically transition (or were too scared to) found solace in the LGB movement in things like the drag queen or butch communities, or if born physically male ended up in the transvestite quagmire - a highly sexualised identity which largely developed in the interests of male fetishists and those males who wanted to fuck them and alienated everyone else. But there were always transvestites who were not sexually motivated, who lived in the opposite gender to their birth sex all or most of the time (when they weren't at work for example), but who didn't seek surgery.  Also there were always people who felt somewhat in the middle and were somewhat adrift although people were calling themselves genderqueer as early as the 90s if not before.  And when a new generation emerged and started to build a language and way of articulating differing experiences of both sex and gender this was ferociously resisted by a lot of older trans people, who saw it as a threat because they didn't want to be visible or politicised and felt it undermined their own struggles.  So there was an almighty row in the trans community abut it, which ultimately got resolved by an understanding that everyone experiences these things differently, they can be difficult to articulate, and probably the best thing to do is respect people's identities and not dictate to people what they should call themelves or what counts as being a legitimate transsexual.  But I guess this is where the relationship between sex identity and gender identity started to get even more complex and influenced by things like aesthetics, preferences, and even political statements.

But even without this sex, and gender, and the interplay between them is still complex.  Presentation doesn't just end at clothes and make up for example, many cis people alter their physicality to more closely match their assigned gender whether that's shaving their legs, getting ripped at the gym, having breast enlargement surgery etc.  The pressure to conform to the gender assigned based on our physical sex is immense, and our internal maps of ourselves are unlikely to be able to truly untangle the two - it's been imprinted on us from birth, and those whose sex identity is askew may look to those of the sex they seek to be and emulate them.  So someone with less intense sex dysphoria, or a mismatched sex identity, or a blurry sex identity, might gain comfort from changing their gender presentation and social role and this is enough for them - without a need for surgery, because that's actually quite a big deal, comes with consequences and is prohibitively expensive or very difficult to access in many countries (including the UK).  But what underlies it is discomfort with their sex,and I suspect if you said to most binary trans people you can change your physical sex by waving a magic wand they would jump at the chance because it is bodies that lie at the core of the discomfort not stereotypes or social roles.  In fact I suspect if you said to binary trans people you have a choice between remaining in the sexed body you were born with but changing your gender role, or changing the sexed body you were born with but remaining in the gender role you were assigned based on your birth sex then most would choose the second as the least worst option.  When those who go onto transition, or seek trans healthcare, talk about gender dysphoria they often really mean bodily dysphoria based on their physical sex, and this may be present and a motivating factor to a greater or lesser degree in lots of people whose gender identity is not in accordance with their physical sex.


----------



## frogwoman (Oct 22, 2021)

Just on that point ,smokedout I went to an lgbt meetup ages ago and there was an elderly gay man* (possibly not the best way to refer to this person sorry) who kept bring referred to and referring to themselves as 'she' and 'old girl' by their (her?) male partner despite not being obviously trans and dressing in masculine clothes and not looking feminine in any way, with others at the meetup referring to them as a man and apparently not bothered by it


----------



## frogwoman (Oct 22, 2021)

I also met a middle aged trans woman in Russia who asked me to use female pronouns despite being outwardly male in every way other than some nail varnish , didn't strike me as being predatory or sexualised or anything just in a very difficult situation tbh as I think she'd been out for some years but due to the intensely intolerant climate had not been able to transition in any meaningful way


----------



## smokedout (Oct 22, 2021)

frogwoman said:


> Just on that point ,smokedout I went to an lgbt meetup ages ago and there was an elderly gay man who kept bring referred to and referring to themselves as 'she' and 'old girl' by their (her?) male partner despite not being obviously trans and dressing in masculine clothes and not looking feminine in any way, with others at the meetup referring to them as a man and apparently not bothered by it



I did quite a lot of drinking round Soho and Compton Street for a period in the early 90s and it was pretty common for gay guys on that scene to refer to each other with female pronouns, think it's pretty much died out now though.


----------



## Reno (Oct 22, 2021)

I'm of a generation of gay men where we still do that occasionally or more precisely, we do it because the previous generation of gay men did that and its part of honouring gay history and doing it with a sense of humor. It's not to be taken seriously and indicative how gay men were playful with their own gender identity, which kept constantly being challenged in a heteronormative society. I grew up gay in the 70s and 80s and had my masculinity questioned all the time, I'd even say I had my masculinity denied for being gay, so we fought for what masculinity could encompass and feminists and lesbians did the same with femininity, rather than opting out of gender as is more common now. Drag wasn't about being a woman, drag challenged how far masculinity could stretch and clones who adopted a hyper masculine style were at the other end of the masculine spectrum.


----------



## Serge Forward (Oct 22, 2021)

A hangover from polari.


----------



## Reno (Oct 22, 2021)

Serge Forward said:


> A hangover from polari.



You'll also find that in many countries which never had polari, like in Germany where I live now.


----------



## frogwoman (Oct 22, 2021)

I was gonna say (and this may be a bit controversial tbh) while I said that lefties going towards terf shit have comprehensively been played I think that, as a bi / leaning towards lesbian woman lol there's a number of reasons why I and possibly others were attracted to terf stuff tbh. Growing up in the 2000s as a teenager on gay chatrooms I'd often try and talk to other women and there would invariably be straight cis guys saying 'im a lesbian in a man's body' usually followed by a dick pick and asking highly invasive/sexualised questions. I'd also say that I had a pretty problematic relationship with gender although I don't actually want to be a man I often think in stereotypically masculine ways and like HoratioCuthbert can feel uncomfortable in groups of women hahah , so when terfs talk about how trans people are narrowing the boundaries of what is considered feminine or what a woman can be I think it is easy for butch women like myself to be somewhat disturbed by it. None of this really has anything to do with trans people though or is something they can be remotely held responsible for but a whole conspiracy theory has been constructed out of it.

 Likewise with all the stuff a couple years back over how trans activists were allegedly trying to pressurise lesbians to have sex with them or something, it's easy for someone to get freaked out about that given that it is what straight society has done all our lives and think 'oh shit were going to have to go back into the closet again' or something, whereas my overriding impression from trans people and even trans activists I got to know is that this is a completely fringe position and most of them just want people to live comfortably with whatever changes to their body they want.

I think like any conspiracy theory it is something that people who are marginalised in some way can be susceptible to and in this case unfortunately it includes the LGBT community. I'm a lil bit tired now tbh and possibly not making any sense lol.


----------



## frogwoman (Oct 22, 2021)

However if you look at facts it's gender criticals obsessively policing stuff like dress etc hence all the stuff on terf twitter about a fucking John Lewis advert in the last couple of days for example or like ridiculing whatever pronouns people want to be referred to as


----------



## LDC (Oct 22, 2021)

smokedout said:


> Perhaps I should try and expand on it a bit then, although I'm trying to articulate this for the first time so bear with me if I end up talking shit.
> 
> I think most people have an inherent understanding of what sex they are, which they have understod since infancy and they are largely at peace with. They may not like aspects of their body, or even aspects of their sex such as menstruation, and they certainly might not like the gendered assumptions that come attached to their sex, but broadly they don't seek to change anything, don't hate their genitals, can function adequately sexually within their sex, and don't deeply desire, or feel they should have the body of the opposite sex.   For the old school mumsnet approved transsexuals however that's not the case.  The classic 'transsexual' child often doesn't just claim to want to be the other sex, but insists they are the other sex, often from as early as they can articulate it, and they keep insisting it until they become gender critical shills or die.   I think it's probably more accurate to describe this as sex dysphoria rather than gender dysphoria - they are at odds with their bodies, not their social role, and this often led a lot of people to look for neurological or biological explanations for this that are rightly read as regressive - having the wrong body for your brain etc.  I think people sought to medicalise their condition as away of deflecting from the shame they felt at being that way - it's not my fault, I was born this way - and a way to seek social approval for the same reason the emerging LGB movement sometimes made similar claims.
> 
> ...



Even though I'm not always 100% in agreement I massively appreciate your posts (and politics) on this, so thanks so much, especially that one, dead thought provoking and challenging. Thanks for sticking with it (us)!


----------



## smokedout (Oct 22, 2021)

frogwoman said:


> However if you look at facts it's gender criticals obsessively policing stuff like dress etc hence all the stuff on terf twitter about a fucking John Lewis advert in the last couple of days for example or like ridiculing whatever pronouns people want to be referred to as



I think going back to this post from Knotted, in particular:

        2b) The terms "man" and "woman" are clear cut biological terms (with the caveat that there is no difference between "male" and "female" brains)

I'm not sure that criticism of gender, or more specifically of male and female brains is still an essential part of gender critical ideology.  Helen Joyce's recent book 'Trans', which she claimed wasn't about trans people lol, and which was very well received in the gender critical movement, talks about the evolved female psyche.  I doubt Conservative Women, or the many evangelicals in the US who now call themselves gender critical have a radical feminist analysis of gender.  In fact more than once I've seen it as a point of attack - you can't be a women because you don't have a female brain.  And there's a whole load of made up evolutionary psychology prevalent in GC circles about how women have evolved to spot men due to their danger, and that's why 'women can always tell' what physical sex someone is whereas men find it more difficult.  I think a lot of people now calling themselves Gender Critical are actually gender conservatives who are critical of what they see as Gender Ideology, which more often than not is a series of straw men positions they've made up and ascribed to trans people en masse based on the odd tweet here and there.

This is starting to bleed over into attacking gender nonconformity like the John Lewis ad.  You can see it in the attacks on drag queens and at least one fairly influential GC twitter person has started arguing that due to autogynephilia then any femininity in men should be seen as suspect and an attempt to act out a fetish in public.  And on that note I think another element to the Gender Critical movement, which they have taken from some schools of radical feminism but which neatly slots into a conservative or religious position as well is their condemnation of sex work, kink and surrogacy which seems pretty embedded within GC circles now and is important to recognise because if they start having victories over trans people then that is likely to be where they will go next.


----------



## frogwoman (Oct 22, 2021)

I thought it was very telling they were all over that after years of claiming they wanted to just let men wear dresses etc


----------



## smokedout (Oct 22, 2021)

More on the LGB Alliance conference


----------



## smokedout (Oct 22, 2021)

Gender critical aligned people on the left are going to have to wake up to the increasing enroachment by the far right into the movement sooner or later because you can pretty much guarantee that every fascist, alt righter, reactionary conservative and evangelical who is even vaguely strategically minded is looking at this now and working at how to find a way in and exploit this conflict.


----------



## Orang Utan (Oct 23, 2021)

I’m very impressed by Shon Faye here:

Manages to address the issue with constructive wisdom


----------



## ViolentPanda (Oct 25, 2021)

ItWillNeverWork said:


> Disabled toilets are gender neutral, and most places have a disabled toilet.


The term is "accessible toilet". A "disabled toilet" is a broken toilet, you twat.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Oct 25, 2021)

Reno said:


> In my experience most restaurants, cafes & pubs don’t have disabled toilets.


The term is "accessible toilet". A "disabled toilet" is a broken toilet, you twat.


----------



## Reno (Oct 25, 2021)

ViolentPanda said:


> The term is "accessible toilet". A "disabled toilet" is a broken toilet, you twat.


English isn’t my first language and I translated from German as I live in Germany but thanks for the insult !


----------



## Orang Utan (Oct 25, 2021)

Reno said:


> English isn’t my first language, but thanks for the insult !


Don’t worry about it, first I’ve heard it called that too. Makes sense though, thinking on it.


----------



## maomao (Oct 25, 2021)

ViolentPanda said:


> The term is "accessible toilet". A "disabled toilet" is a broken toilet, you twat.


It could be disabled with a child safety lock so not necessarily broken. /pedant


----------



## ViolentPanda (Oct 25, 2021)

Reno said:


> English isn’t my first language and I translated from German as I live in Germany but thanks for the insult !


No problem.


----------



## bimble (Oct 25, 2021)

Absolute shambles going on on the internet for a few days now, with Margaret Atwood having stomped right into the quagmire with a surprising lack of wisdom.


----------



## ItWillNeverWork (Oct 25, 2021)

ViolentPanda said:


> The term is "accessible toilet". A "disabled toilet" is a broken toilet, you twat.



Bit harsh, but thanks for the correction.


----------



## Reno (Oct 25, 2021)

I'm leaving Urban again for a while. Sometimes you are in a shit place in your life and then something like this really doesn't help. I stayed out of the more contentious discussions here and you still are countered with nothing but bad faith. Auf Wiedersehen !


----------



## ViolentPanda (Oct 25, 2021)

Reno said:


> I'm leaving Urban again for a while. Sometimes you are in a shit place in your life and then something like this really doesn't help. I stayed out of the more contentious discussions here and you still are countered with nothing but bad faith. Auf Wiedersehen !


Wiedersehen.


----------



## 8ball (Oct 25, 2021)

Reno said:


> English isn’t my first language and I translated from German as I live in Germany but thanks for the insult !



In my experience they get called disabled toilets over 95% of the time, though I’d agree that it’s not the best wording.  Don’t worry about it - this conversation could easily happen a hundred times on another website in English without the point ever being raised.

My workplace. as mentioned earlier, has gone for “gender neutral toilet”.  Which, in English, all toilets are, so that doesn’t help matters.


----------



## spanglechick (Oct 25, 2021)

As a bona fide, blue-badge-carrying disabled person myself, I pretty much always refer to them as “the disabled toilets” or “the disableds” and not sure what I should find offensive.  

On a tangential note, calling them “accessible toilets” seems unhelpfully ambiguous if, as in this very discussion, “accessible” might mean “able to be used” - as it tends to do.  The word “accessible” doesn’t specify, or even necessarily suggest “accessible by people with disabilities”, and so is a significantly less useful term.


----------



## Orang Utan (Oct 25, 2021)

ViolentPanda said:


> Wiedersehen.


Twat


----------



## Orang Utan (Oct 25, 2021)

Reno said:


> I'm leaving Urban again for a while. Sometimes you are in a shit place in your life and then something like this really doesn't help. I stayed out of the more contentious discussions here and you still are countered with nothing but bad faith. Auf Wiedersehen !


Ah at least stay for films n that?


----------



## glitch hiker (Oct 25, 2021)

ViolentPanda said:


> No problem.


What a reactionary cunt you are


----------



## IC3D (Oct 25, 2021)

Slow hand clap


----------



## Cid (Oct 25, 2021)

Reno said:


> I'm leaving Urban again for a while. Sometimes you are in a shit place in your life and then something like this really doesn't help. I stayed out of the more contentious discussions here and you still are countered with nothing but bad faith. Auf Wiedersehen !



Yeah likewise. At least I've already technically been off about a week... I dunno, been here half my life, more or less. But sometimes it's just hard not to take shit to heart, and it's been nice not mulling over some stupid argument or other. As you say, too much bad faith, or I suppose assumptions of it. Too much jerking of knees. But I did keep a vague eye on this thread, and felt I wanted to pop back and say that the last 3/4 pages (give or take a few posts) are really how this place can work when it's at its best. More patience, good explanations, honest questions.

But yeah, think that's about it for me... For the time being anyway. Adieu, 再见 etc.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Oct 25, 2021)

kabbes said:


> I would second it. Delusions of Gender is a masterwork.


That also happens to be very funny in places.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Oct 25, 2021)

Wilf said:


> Yes. Whatever the issues being discussed here, whichever 'side' you are on, 'use the disabled toilets' is not the answer.  If nothing else, depending on conditions, disabled people might be less able to wait for the toilet.


Plus every fucker & his uncle uses accessible toilets already, for shagging, shooting up, or shitting. It makes life difficult for those of us who ARE actually disabled.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Oct 25, 2021)

kabbes said:


> I try to stay out of the trans discussions because who needs another male voice on this?
> 
> Since the discussion has temporarily turned to the question of how people become radicalised and divided, however, I would like to make an observation.  My “uh-oh” moment, when I could see that a massive culture war on this was coming (rather than it just being something played out in various niches) was when a transwoman (sorry, the name escapes me) became Womens’ Officer at Goldsmiths university and took it as an immediate priority to redefine membership to legislate a belief in “trans women are women” as inherent to being a woman and thus part of who the Womens’ Officer was representing.  That was one of the early moments that cis women who had previously largely been oblivious to the arguments started asking, “who the fuck are you to tell me if I’m a woman?”  Maybe it’s just my perception, but that seemed to represent the spearhead of a whole new phase of rather nastier rhetoric that divided two sides that should have had much to unify them.


Lily Madigan was the W/O at Goldsmiths that you're trying to recall.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Oct 25, 2021)

Kevbad the Bad said:


> ...And the London Anarchist Book Fair.


Apologies, but that made me laugh.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Oct 25, 2021)

frogwoman said:


> Jesus fucking Christ


Was a false messiah.


----------



## Raheem (Oct 25, 2021)

kabbes said:


> I try to stay out of the trans discussions because who needs another male voice on this?
> 
> Since the discussion has temporarily turned to the question of how people become radicalised and divided, however, I would like to make an observation.  My “uh-oh” moment, when I could see that a massive culture war on this was coming (rather than it just being something played out in various niches) was when a transwoman (sorry, the name escapes me) became Womens’ Officer at Goldsmiths university and took it as an immediate priority to redefine membership to legislate a belief in “trans women are women” as inherent to being a woman and thus part of who the Womens’ Officer was representing.  That was one of the early moments that cis women who had previously largely been oblivious to the arguments started asking, “who the fuck are you to tell me if I’m a woman?”  Maybe it’s just my perception, but that seemed to represent the spearhead of a whole new phase of rather nastier rhetoric that divided two sides that should have had much to unify them.


So a trans woman was elected women's officer, and then had the temerity to insist that the position of women's officer should be trans-inclusive?


----------



## ViolentPanda (Oct 25, 2021)

S☼I said:


> _trans people are the real oppressors_


No, you are. People on the Matrix keep saying "cat'sbum is the noo Agent Smith". You're "the man", man.


----------



## kabbes (Oct 25, 2021)

Raheem said:


> So a trans woman was elected women's officer, and then had the temerity to insist that the position of women's officer should be trans-inclusive?


Err, no


----------



## Raheem (Oct 25, 2021)

kabbes said:


> Err, no


Well, that's how you made it sound.


----------



## kabbes (Oct 25, 2021)

Raheem said:


> Well, that's how you made it sound.


No it’s not


----------



## kabbes (Oct 25, 2021)

This is how I made it sound:



kabbes said:


> My memory of it, which was years ago now so apologies if it’s not completely accurate, is that in an attempt to enshrine “twaw” as necessary doctrine, she defined “women” in a way that left a lot of women on these boards feeling that they were excluded from the definition.


----------



## Looby (Oct 25, 2021)

Do we really have to do this again? It’s like someone reading an old Hello and discovering Brad cheated on Jen.


----------



## Raheem (Oct 25, 2021)

I must have misheard, then.


----------



## Humberto (Oct 25, 2021)

ViolentPanda said:


> Was a false messiah.


Better than most


----------



## ViolentPanda (Oct 25, 2021)

Orang Utan said:


> Twat


Fuck off, you sententious little prig.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Oct 25, 2021)

glitch hiker said:


> What a reactionary cunt you are


What a humourless wankshaft you are.


----------



## ViolentPanda (Oct 25, 2021)

Looby said:


> Do we really have to do this again? It’s like someone reading an old Hello and discovering Brad cheated on Jen.


Is this a confession that you read "Hello"? Can I start stacking up the kindling around the stake?


----------



## ViolentPanda (Oct 25, 2021)

Humberto said:


> Better than most


Perhaps. It's hard to tell, as history doesn't tell us much about other false messiahs, & what we know about Jesus was mostly written at least a generation after his execution.


----------



## Humberto (Oct 25, 2021)

ViolentPanda said:


> Perhaps. It's hard to tell, as history doesn't tell us much about other false messiahs, & what we know about Jesus was mostly written at least a generation after his execution.


In terms of impact fame/notoriety though. There was a lot of it around during the Roman occupation of ancient Palestine as I'm sure you know.  

Anyway, it was a curt attempt at humour.


----------



## l'Otters (Oct 26, 2021)

Reno said:


> I'm leaving Urban again for a while. Sometimes you are in a shit place in your life and then something like this really doesn't help. I stayed out of the more contentious discussions here and you still are countered with nothing but bad faith. Auf Wiedersehen !


Sad to read this, have appreciated your contributions. Hope to be around when you return, and hope you encouter less of this kind of crap too.


----------



## l'Otters (Oct 26, 2021)

ViolentPanda said:


> What a humourless wankshaft you are.


why don't you go and take your shit out on people somewhere else


----------



## HoratioCuthbert (Oct 26, 2021)

Looby said:


> Do we really have to do this again? It’s like someone reading an old Hello and discovering Brad cheated on Jen.


Now there's a tragedy I actually remember from 
the first time around


----------



## Athos (Oct 26, 2021)

ViolentPanda said:


> Lily Madigan was the W/O at Goldsmiths that you're trying to recall.


I think you might be conflating different things. Don't think she's the person to whom kabbes was referring.  (Also, not sure that he's got the detail right about what happened.)


----------



## belboid (Oct 26, 2021)

ViolentPanda said:


> Lily Madigan was the W/O at Goldsmiths that you're trying to recall.


No she wasn't, that's an entirely different trans woman. I'm sure they all look alike to bigots like you, but they are loads of them!

But you carry on with your little celebration for driving a gay man away, I bet you're really proud of that, probably your biggest success in years.


----------



## belboid (Oct 26, 2021)

kabbes said:


> I try to stay out of the trans discussions because who needs another male voice on this?
> 
> Since the discussion has temporarily turned to the question of how people become radicalised and divided, however, I would like to make an observation.  My “uh-oh” moment, when I could see that a massive culture war on this was coming (rather than it just being something played out in various niches) was when a transwoman (sorry, the name escapes me) became Womens’ Officer at Goldsmiths university and took it as an immediate priority to redefine membership to legislate a belief in “trans women are women” as inherent to being a woman and thus part of who the Womens’ Officer was representing.  That was one of the early moments that cis women who had previously largely been oblivious to the arguments started asking, “who the fuck are you to tell me if I’m a woman?”  Maybe it’s just my perception, but that seemed to represent the spearhead of a whole new phase of rather nastier rhetoric that divided two sides that should have had much to unify them.


and this is completely fictitious too. As in 100% untrue.


----------



## kabbes (Oct 26, 2021)

Well I’m not about to start digging into archives to draw out chapter and verse of the details. Not least because the precise details aren’t really the point. What I distinctly remember was that it was one of the first times it was apparent to me, at least, that some concepts and assumptions that had been contained and taken for granted within student identity politics suddenly hit a mainstream audience that didn’t share those same taken-for-granted views.  There is a difficulty in connecting material, structural power dynamics with individual psychological self-based conceptualisations, and this difficulty had not been engaged with. The result was a shitstorm that was interpreted in very different ways by different groups of people whose entire ontological basis for and experience attached to the self, society and the everyday were worlds apart. It was as a result of that utter inability to understand these ontological differences (on the parts of all involved) that it became one of the first times that I saw the slanging matches that had previously existed only within contained areas of the affected niches spill out into wider society

You’re right that I’ve conflated two controversies, though. It was the controversy related to the women’s officer for a Labour constituency, not the one related to Goldsmiths that I am talking about.


----------



## belboid (Oct 26, 2021)

kabbes said:


> Well I’m not about to start digging into archives to draw out chapter and verse of the details. Not least because the precise details aren’t really the point. What I distinctly remember was that it was one of the first times it was apparent to me, at least, that some concepts and assumptions that had been contained and taken for granted within student identity politics suddenly hit a mainstream audience that didn’t share those same taken-for-granted views.  There is a difficulty in connecting material, structural power dynamics with individual psychological self-based conceptualisations, and this difficulty had not been engaged with. The result was a shitstorm that was interpreted in very different ways by different groups of people whose entire ontological basis of and experience attached to the self, society and the everyday were worlds apart. It was as a result of that utter inability to understand these ontological differences that it became one of the first times that I saw the slanging matches that had previously existed only within contained areas of the affected niches spill out into wider society


What happened was a right wing press saw an opportunity to have a go at a loony left Corbyn supporter and you bought the whole kit and caboodle.  The fact that you have completely muddled up Bahar Mustafa (who said absolutely nothing about trans issues until well after she was bullied out of her job) with your fantasy character is.... let's go for interesting.


----------



## kabbes (Oct 26, 2021)

belboid said:


> What happened was a right wing press saw an opportunity to have a go at a loony left Corbyn supporter and you bought the whole kit and caboodle.  The fact that you have completely muddled up Bahar Mustafa (who said absolutely nothing about trans issues until well after she was bullied out of her job) with your fantasy character is.... let's go for interesting.


This precisely demonstrates the exact lack of willingness to even engage with the underlying ontological issues that led to the thing blowing up in the first place. If you really want to rake it up (which I didn’t — I was making a point about how this stuff became toxic, not about who was right): what happened was that people within a certain sector of politics were so worried about the (undoubtedly important) right to be seen as a woman because you feel like a woman that they failed to consider the perspective of women who would be alienated by the idea that to be a woman, you have to “feel like a woman”.  “What does that _mean_?” these outsider women wanted to know. And no answer was forthcoming because it seems so _obvious_ if your understanding of the self all derives from a Descartean duality and a consciousness that comes from within. Plus it seemed so _obvious_ that those asking the question must of course have been doing so in bad faith.  Just right-wingers to be vilified.  Not least because an atomised understanding of the self tends to go hand in hand with a solipsism that conceptualises questions as being about the one asked the question of rather than the one doing the questioning.


----------



## belboid (Oct 26, 2021)

kabbes said:


> This precisely demonstrates the exact lack of willingness to even engage with the underlying ontological issues that led to the thing blowing up in the first place. If you really want to rake it up (which I didn’t — I was making a point about how this stuff became toxic, not about who was right): what happened was that people within a certain sector of politics were so worried about the (undoubtedly important) right to be seen as a woman because you feel like a woman that they failed to consider the perspective of women who would be alienated by the idea that to be a woman, you have to “feel like a woman”.  “What does that _mean_?” these outsider women wanted to know. And no answer was forthcoming because it seems so _obvious_ if your understanding of the self all derives from a Descartean duality and a consciousness that comes from within. Plus it seemed so _obvious_ that those asking the question must of course have been doing so in bad faith.  Just right-wingers to be vilified.  Not least because an atomised understanding of the self tends to go hand in hand with a solipsism that conceptualises questions as being about the one asked the question of rather than the one doing the questioning.


No, it is me laughing at you for your pomposity and ignorance. I repeat, Bahar Mustafa said absolutely nothing about trans rights (as far as I am aware), so the above is absolutely nothing buy belated self-justification for your complete horror at young people not doing things the same way as old farts like us.  Thank god. 

Old man shouting at clouds (but with a thesaurus)


----------



## kabbes (Oct 26, 2021)

belboid said:


> No, it is me laughing at you for your pomposity and ignorance. I repeat, Bahar Mustafa said absolutely nothing about trans rights (as far as I am aware), so the above is absolutely nothing buy belated self-justification for your complete horror at young people not doing things the same way as old farts like us.  Thank god.
> 
> Old man shouting at clouds (but with a thesaurus)


I’m not talking about Bahar Mustafa. As I already acknowledged, I’d got the goldsmiths and Labour controversies mixed up.


----------



## belboid (Oct 26, 2021)

kabbes said:


> I’m not talking about Bahar Mustafa. As I already acknowledged, I’d got the goldsmiths and Labour controversies mixed up.


So you're talking about a case where a trans woman was freely elected against a transphobic candidate (whose campaign centred on transphobia) and who then wanted to implement the platform she openly stood on. Again, a right-wing load of old balls that you bought hook line and sinker.

Trans people assert themselves a tiny bit and its all _far too sudden, _silly fools should have sat back and patiently explained their position for a few decades.


----------



## frogwoman (Oct 26, 2021)

It was lily madigan iirc. In any case I've not got the slightest interested in student controversies in goldsmith's and it's weird that people form their opinion on 1% of the population based on this.


----------



## frogwoman (Oct 26, 2021)

So if trans people shouldn't stand for elected positions and shouldn't take part in sports etc what are they supposed to do then? It honestly seems to me that some people want them to be pushed out of anything 'visible' whatsoever


----------



## hitmouse (Oct 26, 2021)

kabbes said:


> It was as a result of that utter inability to understand these ontological differences (on the parts of all involved) that it became one of the first times that I saw the slanging matches that had previously existed only within contained areas of the affected niches spill out into wider society
> 
> You’re right that I’ve conflated two controversies, though. It was the controversy related to the women’s officer for a Labour constituency, not the one related to Goldsmiths that I am talking about.


Maybe we should start by trying to establish the ontological differences between the Rochester and Strood CLP and Goldsmiths, and then work from there?


----------



## kabbes (Oct 26, 2021)

frogwoman said:


> So if trans people shouldn't stand for elected positions and shouldn't take part in sports etc what are they supposed to do then? It honestly seems to me that some people want them to be pushed out of anything 'visible' whatsoever


Who said it was anything to do with who is allowed to stand for a position?  Did I mention anything along those lines at all?


----------



## belboid (Oct 26, 2021)

kabbes said:


> Who said it was anything to do with who is allowed to stand for a position?  Did I mention anything along those lines at all?


This is what you said - the fact that it is 100% untrue (both for BM and LM) means you should probably stop defending it.

_ My “uh-oh” moment, when I could see that a massive culture war on this was coming (rather than it just being something played out in various niches) was when *a transwoman (sorry, the name escapes me) became Womens’ Officer at Goldsmiths university and took it as an immediate priority to redefine membership to legislate a belief in “trans women are women”* as inherent to being a woman and thus part of who the Womens’ Officer was representing. That was one of the early moments that cis women who had previously largely been oblivious to the arguments started asking, “who the fuck are you to tell me if I’m a woman?”_


----------



## smokedout (Oct 26, 2021)

kabbes said:


> Well I’m not about to start digging into archives to draw out chapter and verse of the details. Not least because the precise details aren’t really the point. What I distinctly remember was that it was one of the first times it was apparent to me, at least, that some concepts and assumptions that had been contained and taken for granted within student identity politics suddenly hit a mainstream audience that didn’t share those same taken-for-granted views.  There is a difficulty in connecting material, structural power dynamics with individual psychological self-based conceptualisations, and this difficulty had not been engaged with. The result was a shitstorm that was interpreted in very different ways by different groups of people whose entire ontological basis for and experience attached to the self, society and the everyday were worlds apart. It was as a result of that utter inability to understand these ontological differences (on the parts of all involved) that it became one of the first times that I saw the slanging matches that had previously existed only within contained areas of the affected niches spill out into wider society
> 
> You’re right that I’ve conflated two controversies, though. It was the controversy related to the women’s officer for a Labour constituency, not the one related to Goldsmiths that I am talking about.



This thing I can't remember properly made me very cross and was the first time I  noticed uppity trans people so that must be when this conflict started and it was a trans person's fault.

Nothing to do with a media campaign in which centrist feminist newspaper columnists on the left and ring wing men in the Tory press co-operated in a relentless attack on trans rights which was in full swing by the time Madigan got elected.


----------



## mauvais (Oct 26, 2021)

I sat in an hour-long listening session yesterday where my trans colleagues talked about how they feel right now and the consequences on them of what my employer does.

A dose of this sort of thing would do a lot of people here some good, not least to suppress their 'yes but what about...' opinions, maybe forever.


----------



## Wilf (Oct 28, 2021)

I notice Kathleen Stock has resigned.








						Sussex professor resigns after transgender rights row
					

Kathleen Stock announces resignation as university says ‘no substantive allegations of wrongdoing’ were made against her




					www.theguardian.com
				




I'm not going to wade in on the substance of her views, particularly as I gather the criticisms of her go beyond her actual writings.  However the way this has played out has a depressing feel to it.  I work at a university but am not going to bang on about some abstract 'academic freedom'. I am a bit surprised that my union, UCU, has played an apparently 'anti-Stock' role, though again, I don't know enough of the back story.  What depresses me are aspects of the anti-Stock campaign and how it seems to have become a mixture of anonymous protest and student consumerism.  You get some of that in the quotes from this pre-resignation reporting:









						Campus in the spotlight: how Sussex became focus of row over trans rights
					

What started as protest calling for a lecturer to be sacked has evolved into a fraught debate over academic freedom and student safety




					www.theguardian.com
				






> “*People are annoyed because Stock’s being paid to research about that here, when it makes other people feel uncomfortable,*” said a first-year student. “I know some people want her out,” said another. *“I would rather the university explain why she should be here a lot better. *I’m never going to be as angry as someone who is transgender. But there are obviously people who are going to be majorly affected.”
> 
> Stock told the Sunday Times she has been advised by police to install CCTV at her home and to stay away from Sussex’s campus.
> 
> ...



Suppose this is a difficult thread to start sounding off about 'identity politics' as, perhaps I am.  Same time, I don't like that slippage from 'We don't like her views... through to 'you need to keep us safe'.... on to 'she has to go because we are paying for it'.   Feel like throwing some caveats in straight away. I'm certain  trans people *do *feel unsafe and I'm sure Stock's views/actions/campaigns don't help that.  But it's the shortcuts, via consumerism, towards boot her out that are problematic.


----------



## belboid (Oct 28, 2021)

Wilf said:


> I notice Kathleen Stock has resigned.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


The protests weren’t about her views, they were about her actions.  There was never any objection to her actual teaching or research topics, so it is not about ‘academic freedom’ at all.  

It is, or was, about her being a head of the anti trans group the LGB Alliance and her campaigning to reduce the rights of trans people (wrt toilets and other facilities) and her campaign against Stonewall.  

Sussex’s own “Code of Practice on Academic Titles” (CPAT)  states that “academic title holders must not bring the university into disrepute,” which it further defines as follows:



> _Those that demonstrate hostility towards, or could reasonably be expected to generate hostility in others towards, individuals or groups of individuals by reason of a protected characteristic (as defined in the Equality Act 2010)._



That is what the complaints about Stock were about, not that you’d read that in reactionary shite like the guardian.


----------



## Wilf (Oct 28, 2021)

belboid said:


> The protests weren’t about her views, they were about her actions.  There was never any objection to her actual teaching or research topics, so it is not about ‘academic freedom’ at all.
> 
> It is, or was, about her being a head of the anti trans group the LGB Alliance and her campaigning to reduce the rights of trans people (wrt toilets and other facilities) and her campaign against Stonewall.
> 
> ...


Well, as I said, I'm not defending some abstract notion of academic freedom anyway and the biggest threats to it are from university bosses themselves.  And as I also said, I'm aware it was about her actions.  But when you said it was never about her teaching/research, there are quotes in the piece that focus exactly on that.  

Fwiw, I've no objection to students setting out a political challenge to that which they are taught.  'Sack her because we are consumers' ain't that though.


----------



## 19force8 (Oct 28, 2021)

belboid said:


> The protests weren’t about her views, they were about her actions.  There was never any objection to her actual teaching or research topics, so it is not about ‘academic freedom’ at all.
> 
> It is, or was, about her being a head of the anti trans group the LGB Alliance and her campaigning to reduce the rights of trans people (wrt toilets and other facilities) and her campaign against Stonewall.


It's about more than toilets, etc. She was a signatory to the Declaration on Women's Sex Based Rights which called for "_the elimination of that act and practice of discrimination against women which comprises the inclusion of men who claim to have a female ‘gender identity’ in the category of women._" In other words for the elimination of trans women's existing rights in UK law. The declaration was the work of the Women's Human Rights Campaign, a transphobic group that seeks to "morally mandate" "transsexualism" out of existence.

But Stock doesn't want the GRA repealed  

On top of that she has a record of stamping on the freedom of speech of students and junior academics. One of whom her followers sought to have suspended from his role with the American Psychological Philosophical [doh!] Association. All that is bad enough, but when academics of equal status have a go at her for her appalling views and behaviour she doesn't make a peep.

On the whole a nasty piece of work. I pity the students at Sussex.

Edit: And solidarity with them too.

Further edits re the situation with the APA.


----------



## Raheem (Oct 28, 2021)

Wilf said:


> Fwiw, I've no objection to students setting out a political challenge to that which they are taught.  'Sack her because we are consumers' ain't that though.


Have to say, this seems like picking holes. It might not be a great feature of our HE system, but they are consumers in the end.


----------



## hitmouse (Oct 28, 2021)

If anyone wants a fairly long read from the other side of the story:








						The UK Media Has Seriously Bungled the Kathleen Stock Story
					

This is a long essay. It has to be, because the errors made in reporting the Stock story are many and consequential. The upshot is: Adam Tickell, the VC of Sussex University, should be fired; the UK media desperately needs to hire trans editors; and Kathleen Stock has this week conspired to...




					grace.substack.com
				




UCU statement is here, not sure if they've said anything on the matter since then?








						University of Sussex: UCU statement
					






					www.ucu.org.uk
				



(eta: that seems to be a national UCU statement saying "we think the Sussex UCU statement is alright" but not actually linking to said Sussex UCU statement, sure it should be possible to find it but have to go do other stuff right now)


----------



## kabbes (Oct 28, 2021)

Students genuinely are paying a lot of money, though. And what they get for that money is frequently both poorly organised and almost contemptuous in its attitude towards those paying for it.  In addition, the students have very little power to address the problems they face, because the institutions know they can just wait them out — students are only there for 3 or 4 years — plus students are relying on the very people they ought to complain about for their futures. 

In that context, I’m not surprised that it is uppermost in students’ minds when they find themselves in yet another power imbalance to point out that they are actually paying for this experience.  In no other walk of life would you expect to shell out over £27000 to be treated like an annoyance.


----------



## hitmouse (Oct 28, 2021)

Oh, here's the actual UCU Sussex statement:








						Statement in Support of Trans and Nonbinary Communities at Sussex
					

In the light of recent events on campus and ensuing public response on social media, we extend our solidarity to all trans and nonbinary members of our community who, now more than ever, should receive the unequivocal support of the University and its management. As a union, we strongly condemn...




					ucusussex.wixsite.com
				




Which does say "We do not endorse the call for any worker to be summarily sacked and we oppose all forms of bullying, harassment, and intimidation of staff and students." Although you could point out that the word "summarily" does a lot of work in that sentence, and I imagine it probably is the case that they probably didn't fight as hard to prevent this sacking as they might have done for any other job loss, but then again this isn't exactly any old sacking.

Also IIRC Stock has a history of acting in ways that undermines union actions in the sector, which again isn't a sacking offence in itself but might not contribute to making too many friends in the local union branch:


Oops, and just realised that she resigned rather than being sacked, with the management line being 


> “We had hoped that Professor Stock would feel able to return to work, and we would have supported her to do so,” it continues. “She has decided that recent events have meant that this will not be possible, and we respect and understand that decision.
> 
> “We will miss her many contributions, from which the university has benefited during her time here.”


In which case it's even harder to see what the UCU could/should have done in defence of Stock, since it's not something coming from management.


----------



## 19force8 (Oct 28, 2021)

hitmouse said:


> If anyone wants a fairly long read from the other side of the story:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I like the way Grace Lavery refuses to back down in the face bullying from the usual suspects. Where students have had to withdraw fair criticism and apologise to Stock for fear of being sued she has taken up their criticisms as her own and amplified them.

In part it's because living in the USA gives her virtual immunity from UK libel law (anyone who's followed Rachel Riley's three year libel case against Mike Sivier will know what an enormous burden our laws are), but there also seems to be a strong protective ethos towards students among (some) American academics.


----------



## belboid (Oct 28, 2021)

hitmouse said:


> In which case it's even harder to see what the UCU could/should have done in defence of Stock, since it's not something coming from management.


not to mention the fact that she quit the union a couple of years back


----------



## Raheem (Oct 28, 2021)

She'll have quit to take up an offer from some RW think-tank or whatever. Betcha.


----------



## Wilf (Oct 28, 2021)

kabbes said:


> Students genuinely are paying a lot of money, though. And what they get for that money is frequently both poorly organised and almost contemptuous in its attitude towards those paying for it.  In addition, the students have very little power to address the problems they face, because the institutions know they can just wait them out — students are only there for 3 or 4 years — plus students are relying on the very people they ought to complain about for their futures.
> 
> In that context, I’m not surprised that it is uppermost in students’ minds when they find themselves in yet another power imbalance to point out that they are actually paying for this experience.  In no other walk of life would you expect to shell out over £27000 to be treated like an annoyance.


Yes, it's the power of the consumer, but in an unresponsive, clunky market.  Students have just about no power 'as students', only in certain circumstances as a kind of administrative consumer (national student survey and other 'feedback' loops).  My own institution has just done appallingly badly in the NSS and it's a 'real' thing, something the place has shat itself over as it affects league tables and numbers opting to study there.  At the moment, 'responsiveness' to students is top of the agenda, as is the 'student voice'.  But there's no real participation, or power.  The NSS and student satisfaction is at one and the same time something that panics managers whilst also being deployed against staff to make them dance.. Consumerism in HE is about bosses, not 'consumers'.


----------



## bimble (Oct 29, 2021)

I am so confused. I think maybe the Times newspaper has completely lost the plot ?
This is their article today:




__





						archive.ph
					





					archive.ph
				



 it says that 'gender identity counselling' is going to be criminalised.  

This is all i can find from the government on this.








						Government progresses ban on LGBT Conversion Therapy
					

Minister for Women and Equalities, Liz Truss, today (29 October) vowed to protect LGBT people, and especially under 18s, from harmful conversion therapies as she set out proposals to ban the practice.




					www.gov.uk
				




Anybody have an idea what if anything is actually going on?


----------



## TopCat (Oct 29, 2021)

bimble said:


> I am so confused. I think maybe the Times newspaper has completely lost the plot ?
> This is their article today:
> 
> 
> ...











						Conversion therapy to be restricted but not banned in proposed bill
					

Equalities minister Liz Truss will consult on plans to allow counselling for non-vulnerable adults




					www.theguardian.com


----------



## SpookyFrank (Oct 29, 2021)

kabbes said:


> In no other walk of life would you expect to shell out over £27000 to be treated like an annoyance.



Except maybe at the dentists.


----------



## bimble (Oct 29, 2021)

Yep that makes it more likely it’s just the Times has lost it.


----------



## teuchter (Oct 29, 2021)

hitmouse said:


> If anyone wants a fairly long read from the other side of the story:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I've just read that and find it unconvincing.

I don't know lots about Kathleen Stock, and have only become aware of her since this Sussex University thing came up. In the bits of reporting I've read, the impression I've got is that the objections to her are based on particular interpretations of things she has said, rather than clearly stated positions that she has expressed. That article reinforces that impression.

Just to take one example of something in that article - it says 



> The LGBA supports conversion therapy: an extremely controversial and dangerous practice whereby Christian ministers encourage gay people to “pray the gay away.”



and



> As their website makes very clear, they believe that ministers should be free to conduct “therapeutic” relationships with cisgender gay patients, aimed at helping those patients to suppress their homosexual desires:



Then they quote some text from the LGBA website. If one were following up these arguments thoroughly, it would be necessary to check the source and make sure that what they quote does not selectively exclude other stuff that is important. But there's not even any need to do that, because what they quote contains this statement:



This just leaves me .

That and several other bits of the article make me feel it's an unreliable account of other things including what it says were the main reasons for the students' objection to KS.


----------



## Raheem (Oct 29, 2021)

teuchter said:


> Then they quote some text from the LGBA website. If one were following up these arguments thoroughly, it would be necessary to check the source and make sure that what they quote does not selectively exclude other stuff that is important. But there's not even any need to do that, because what they quote contains this statement:
> 
> View attachment 294606
> 
> ...


Are you thinking that the term "conversion therapy" applies only to coercive practices? That would be your misunderstanding.


----------



## teuchter (Oct 29, 2021)

Raheem said:


> Are you thinking that the term "conversion therapy" applies only to coercive practices? That would be your misunderstanding.



The text quoted from the LGBA website (which isn't linked by the way, so I can't even find the original) seems pretty clear to me - they are against "coercive or manipulative" attempts to change someone's sexuality, but they think that religious people should still be free to discuss things including their sexuality within their faith group.

This is then interpreted as "supporting" religious leaders aiming to suppress someone's homosexuality.

This is typical of this whole debate - you define something as including stuff you don't agree with, and then apply that definition to what the other person has said, regardless of what their actual intent was, to make it look like they are taking an extreme position on something.

In this case, "conversion therapy" is deemed to include any kind of discussion involving sexuality carried out within a faith group. Then when the LGBA say that they don't think all such discussion should be outlawed, they are deemed to "support conversion therapy".

Taking what I think would be a generally accepted idea of what "conversion therapy" is, is it reasonable to say that the LGBA "supports conversion therapy"? No, I don't think it is. So, when later in the article I'm told something like Kathleen Stock wants to erase trans rights, or whatever, I'm inclined to suspect this is a misrepresentation of her views.


----------



## teuchter (Oct 29, 2021)

Prior to reading in that article I was actually going to forward it to someone I know who's quite angry about what's happened at Sussex and who is worried about issues of academic freedom and so on. In discussions I've said I don't know a lot about the background but that they should try and read up on "the other side" before coming to conclusions about what's going on based only on what's reported in the Guardian etc.

I think I'm not going to send that article though. I am pretty sure that it would only entrench how they view the situation.


----------



## belboid (Oct 29, 2021)

teuchter said:


> The text quoted from the LGBA website (which isn't linked by the way, so I can't even find the original) seems pretty clear to me - they are against "coercive or manipulative" attempts to change someone's sexuality, but they think that religious people should still be free to discuss things including their sexuality within their faith group.
> 
> This is then interpreted as "supporting" religious leaders aiming to suppress someone's homosexuality.
> 
> ...


you're fucking shit at searching then, there's a big fat page with all the quotes on. They are very explicit that they do not support any extension of the law on conversion therapy and are _only _interested in it to 'stop transing the gay away'   Utterly vile group.


----------



## Raheem (Oct 29, 2021)

teuchter said:


> In this case, "conversion therapy" is deemed to include any kind of discussion involving sexuality carried out within a faith group. Then when the LGBA say that they don't think all such discussion should be outlawed, they are deemed to "support conversion therapy".


You seem to have quite a big excluded middle here, Teuchter.

"Conversion therapy" is anything that purports to be able to help a person  change their identity permanently from one thing to another (gay to straight, most commonly). 

In some cases, people are forced or pressured into undergoing conversion therapy. But in probably the majority of cases, a person enters into the therapy of their own free will. For example, by going on Google seeking the services of a counsellor.

It's this second type of conversion therapy which the LGBA appears to think is fine. It's an unusual position for a gay rights organisation.

General discussion of sexuality and counselling for LGBT people is not at issue, because no-one is seeking to ban those things, although they do form a common straw-man argument for people who support conversion therapy.


----------



## hitmouse (Oct 29, 2021)

An archived version of the relevant page is here:




__





						archive.ph
					





					archive.md
				




But yeah, it does seem like the point at issue is "so long as it is not a coercive or manipulative attempt to change someone’s sexual orientation" - which I suppose leaves open the question of what a non-coercive or manipulative attempt to do that might be? Also relevant is this:
"*What does “enforce existing legislation” mean?*
Many of the practices we typically associate with conversion therapy, such as torture, physical assault, “corrective” rape, kidnapping and something else are already illegal activity. An additional piece of legislation is just a distraction and a chance for the government to pat itself on the back for doing “the right thing”. The existing laws need to be enforced and the government needs to provide guidance to the police, the Crown Prosecution Service, and other agencies as to which laws are applicable to be used against conversion therapy practices."
Which seems to suggest that they're fine with conversion therapy so long as it stops short of including practices like torture or kidnapping. I appreciate that a lot of this comes down to whether you want to read the ambiguities in a charitable or a suspicious way, but the fact that prominent LGB Alliance figures have documented links to Christian Right groups like the Heritage Foundation does seem to lend weight to the suspicious reading.


----------



## teuchter (Oct 29, 2021)

Raheem said:


> You seem to have quite a big excluded middle here, Teuchter.
> 
> "Conversion therapy" is anything that purports to be able to help a person  change their identity permanently from one thing to another (gay to straight, most commonly).
> 
> ...



Is it really an unusual position for a gay rights organisation to take, to be "not opposed" to therapy/counselling in general?

Obviously there is always going to be loads of disagreement about what should or shouldn't happen during a therapy session of any kind. Whether it relates to sexual orientation, gender identity, or anything else. Any therapy session has the potential to change the subject's thinking on or interpretation of various things. If you want to remove all possibility that counselling or therapy might involve inappropriate suggestion or persuasion, then as far as I can see the only position you could take is that no-one should go to any counselling session ever.


----------



## hitmouse (Oct 29, 2021)

This is Stonewall's position on it, fwiw:








						Ban Conversion Therapy
					

You can help ban conversion therapy. LGBTQ+ people have nothing to be ashamed of and there is nothing wrong or broken about who we are. Our sexual orientations and gender identities are diverse and should be celebrated. Yet conversion practices are still legal and still happening in...




					www.stonewall.org.uk
				












						Ban Conversion Therapy: Why we need a ban with no exemptions and no excuses
					

A full ban on conversion therapy must include religious settings and protect trans people. Aged 21, Liam – a trans man – confided in the pastor at his church about having a difficult time with his gender identity and sexuality. When he was offered support, he accepted, not realising...




					www.stonewall.org.uk
				




They seem to think that existing legislation is insufficient and the law should be changed.


----------



## ItWillNeverWork (Oct 29, 2021)

It seems odd that people would go to this so-called 'conversion' therapy, but surely if someone chooses to do so and they are not being forced, then that is their right? I don't see what business it is of the government what people choose to do with their own body/mind.


----------



## teuchter (Oct 29, 2021)

hitmouse said:


> This is Stonewall's position on it, fwiw:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


As far as I can make out from that archived page, LGBA don't say that the existing legislation is sufficient nor do they say that the law shouldn't be changed. Their position is to do with the ways in which they think it should be changed.


----------



## bimble (Oct 29, 2021)

This is old but i was reminded of it now, reading about this banning conversion therapy stuff. The last paragraph particularly. 








						Tavistock trust whistleblower David Bell: ‘I believed I was doing the right thing’
					

The psychiatrist behind a critical report on the gender identity unit at the NHS trust on the efforts to silence him and his concerns about children’s access to treatment




					www.theguardian.com


----------



## belboid (Oct 29, 2021)

(oh not a double post, in fact the original has disappeared!)



ItWillNeverWork said:


> It seems odd that people would go to this so-called 'conversion' therapy, but surely if someone chooses to do so and they are not being forced, then that is their right? I don't see what business it is of the government what people choose to do with their own body/mind.



Virtually nobody freely chooses to go to such therapies. They are forced into it by their family/church/peers. Even the tiny number that may choose to go by themselves do so because they fear how they will be accepted by their community who have made them feel they'll be going straight to hell.  That is not a 'free' choice.

If you are being consistent on this, you should support female genital mutilation, as long as the women have decided to do it for themselves.


----------



## belboid (Oct 29, 2021)

teuchter said:


> As far as I can make out from that archived page, LGBA don't say that the existing legislation is sufficient nor do they say that the law shouldn't be changed. Their position is to do with the ways in which they think it should be changed.


There is no call for any further legislation, it explicitly says what we have already is sufficient.  If you have any issues with that, then its your comprehension issues.

(you needn't go to an archived page, its still on the main website.  I wont link because we dont link to hate sites here)


----------



## hitmouse (Oct 29, 2021)

> 2) Enforce existing legislation and guidance​We call on the government to enforce any existing legislation that can be used to help *#EndConversionTherapy*. Government also needs to enforce the existing guidance for schools to avoid misinformation that may lead children to believe either their personality or their body is in need of changing.
> 
> 
> *Why not just ask for a law to ban conversion therapy?*
> ...


----------



## belboid (Oct 29, 2021)

They do actually want to extend a ban on 'conversion therapy' in one sense.  They believe that any counselling that might a young persons notion of being trans should be banned, because that is 'transing the gay away.'


----------



## teuchter (Oct 29, 2021)

belboid said:


> There is no call for any further legislation, it explicitly says what we have already is sufficient.


No it doesn't.


----------



## hitmouse (Oct 29, 2021)

Where they say "An additional piece of legislation is just a distraction and a chance for the government to pat itself on the back for doing “the right thing”.", is that what you interpret as them supporting a change to the law?


----------



## ItWillNeverWork (Oct 29, 2021)

belboid said:


> (oh not a double post, in fact the original has disappeared!)
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I don't think FGM is comparable here. FGM is done to children who by definition cannot consent. As for surgeries that relate to altering a person's genitalia in other ways, no I wouldn't ban adults from having such surgery. Although I do believe it should be discouaged with therapeutic options as a first port of call. As I say, it is their body.

The question of what is coercive and what isn't is a tough one. How do we distinguish between a person that is coerced, and someone that has a genuinly held belief that leads them to seek these 'therapies'?


----------



## teuchter (Oct 29, 2021)

belboid said:


> (oh not a double post, in fact the original has disappeared!)
> 
> 
> 
> ...


You could say the same about any conversation that a young person has with someone from a trans rights advocacy organisation and there are suggestions that could be made during that conversation that some people might have a problem with. We can't be sure how freely they entered into such a conversation nor can we be sure if there was any coercive element to such a conversation. So to "be consistent" you'd have to be against this too.

When you use the wording "such therapies" you are doing the thing of defining unacceptable therapies as the ones you consider unacceptable.


----------



## belboid (Oct 29, 2021)

teuchter said:


> You could say the same about any conversation that a young person has with someone from a trans rights advocacy organisation and there are suggestions that could be made during that conversation that some people might have a problem with. We can't be sure how freely they entered into such a conversation nor can we be sure if there was any coercive element to such a conversation. So to "be consistent" you'd have to be against this too.
> 
> When you use the wording "such therapies" you are doing the thing of defining unacceptable therapies as the ones you consider unacceptable.


I now understand your comprehension issues.  I'mm sure you'll find someone who digs gibberish though, carry on.


----------



## teuchter (Oct 29, 2021)

hitmouse said:


> Where they say "An additional piece of legislation is just a distraction and a chance for the government to pat itself on the back for doing “the right thing”.", is that what you interpret as them supporting a change to the law?


No.
I have not said that I interpret them as "supporting a change to the law".
In trying to understand their position I would look at the entire page including this bit:



> W*hy more research?*
> To effectively tackle a problem, you have to understand exactly what is going on. If legislation is necessary, along with other measures, we first need to be in possession of the facts. This means conducting full and detailed research into the extent of practices that would be classified as conversion therapy, as well as exploring and clarifying the reasons these practices are taking place.


----------



## Raheem (Oct 29, 2021)

ItWillNeverWork said:


> It seems odd that people would go to this so-called 'conversion' therapy, but surely if someone chooses to do so and they are not being forced, then that is their right? I don't see what business it is of the government what people choose to do with their own body/mind.


Think it makes better sense to look at it from the perspective of the rights of practitioners, rather than their consumers.

Few people would think it would make sense to allow absolutely any therapeutic treatment to be offered on the basis of absolutely any claims you like, regardless of efficacy, harm or informed consent. So it is really a question of where you draw the line.


----------



## ItWillNeverWork (Oct 29, 2021)

Raheem said:


> Think it makes better sense to look at it from the perspective of the rights of practitioners, rather than their consumers.
> 
> Few people would think it would make sense to allow absolutely any therapeutic treatment to be offered on the basis of absolutely any claims you like, regardless of efficacy, harm or informed consent. So it is really a question of where you draw the line.



Is there a line to be drawn at puberty blockers for children?


----------



## Raheem (Oct 29, 2021)

ItWillNeverWork said:


> Is there a line to be drawn at puberty blockers for children?


That's a bit of a swerve in direction compared to your last post. But obviously there's a line to be drawn with any medical treatment, whether it's one side or the other.


----------



## belboid (Oct 29, 2021)

ItWillNeverWork said:


> Is there a line to be drawn at puberty blockers for children?


absolutely not if refusing them would lead to harm for the child, attempted suicide, severe mental trauma, etc


----------



## ItWillNeverWork (Oct 29, 2021)

Raheem said:


> That's a bit of a swerve in direction compared to your last post.



Not really. The issue of informed consent was brought up, and this relates directly to what therapies, and by extension, surgeries we can say for sure are acceptable. All of these decisions take place within a social context in which the ideas around us in some sense condition our choices.


----------



## ItWillNeverWork (Oct 29, 2021)

belboid said:


> absolutely not is refusing them would lead to harm for the child, attempted suicide, severe mental trauma, etc



That's a very absolute position you have there. What is your evidence?


----------



## belboid (Oct 29, 2021)

ItWillNeverWork said:


> That's a very absolute position you have there. What is your evidence?


The 'is' should have been an 'if' (now corrected).  I am against medication unless it is absolutely necessary, but there is no doubt that some young people become massively traumatised with the onset of puberty, in which case blockers (which delay, not completely end) puberty are an absolutely vital piece of the toolkit.


----------



## smokedout (Oct 29, 2021)

teuchter said:


> I've just read that and find it unconvincing.
> 
> I don't know lots about Kathleen Stock, and have only become aware of her since this Sussex University thing came up. In the bits of reporting I've read, the impression I've got is that the objections to her are based on particular interpretations of things she has said, rather than clearly stated positions that she has expressed. That article reinforces that impression.


The main objections are two-fold - her position on the board of an organisation which opposes existing trans rights and seeks to destroy the historic solidarity between LGB and Trans people and that she signed the Declaration of Women's Sex Based Rights, a document published by an openly trans eliminationist group which calls for amongst other things the global ban on any legal recognition of trans people's aquired gender.

Personally I think there are issues with her scholarship, conduct, and claims of expertise in a field she is not qualified in as well although I'm not sure what the university should do about that.  Maybe make the position clear as Washington University did recently regarding anti-trans 'expert' Dr Hruz (who recently gave evidence to the UK courts in Keira Bell's case).


There's a good piece on the background of some of the issues around Stock here.


----------



## smokedout (Oct 29, 2021)

bimble said:


> This is old but i was reminded of it now, reading about this banning conversion therapy stuff. The last paragraph particularly.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



The problems with the Tavistock are manifold, one of the main ones being it's dogmatic adherence to Freudianism and talking therapies.  They should never have been put in control of GIDS, nowhere else in the world are Freudian psychoanalysts running trans healthcare, and it's hardly suprising those who support an ideology which claims girls grow up with penis envy and boys with castration anxiety should become obsessed with healthcare for trans kids.


----------



## kabbes (Oct 29, 2021)

smokedout said:


> The problems with the Tavistock are manifold, one of the main ones being it's dogmatic adherence to Freudianism and talking therapies.  They should never have been put in control of GIDS, nowhere else in the world are Freudian psychoanalysts running trans healthcare, and it's hardly suprising those who support an ideology which claims girls grow up with penis envy and boys with castration anxiety should become obsessed with healthcare for trans kids.


The Tavistock is not Freudian.  Not all psychoanalysis is Freudian — they aren’t synonyms.  The Tavistock follows strands of psychoanalytic theory that branched off from Freudianism over 70 years ago.  The concepts it uses are not built on the concept of the bestial self (such as the idea of being driven by sexual instincts) at all. Instead, they are built on ideas that completely rejected that approach.   There was a big bust up about it in the 1940s and 1950s,  because they had completely different (and largely incompatible) conceptualisations of the formation of the unconscious


----------



## 19force8 (Oct 29, 2021)

smokedout said:


> There's a good piece on the background of some of the issues around Stock here.


I knew Stock was a nasty piece of work, but didn't really get the extent and reach of her viciousness. Thank you


----------



## emanymton (Oct 29, 2021)

smokedout said:


> Perhaps I should try and expand on it a bit then, although I'm trying to articulate this for the first time so bear with me if I end up talking shit.
> 
> I think most people have an inherent understanding of what sex they are, which they have understod since infancy and they are largely at peace with. They may not like aspects of their body, or even aspects of their sex such as menstruation, and they certainly might not like the gendered assumptions that come attached to their sex, but broadly they don't seek to change anything, don't hate their genitals, can function adequately sexually within their sex, and don't deeply desire, or feel they should have the body of the opposite sex.   For the old school mumsnet approved transsexuals however that's not the case.  The classic 'transsexual' child often doesn't just claim to want to be the other sex, but insists they are the other sex, often from as early as they can articulate it, and they keep insisting it until they become gender critical shills or die.   I think it's probably more accurate to describe this as sex dysphoria rather than gender dysphoria - they are at odds with their bodies, not their social role, and this often led a lot of people to look for neurological or biological explanations for this that are rightly read as regressive - having the wrong body for your brain etc.  I think people sought to medicalise their condition as away of deflecting from the shame they felt at being that way - it's not my fault, I was born this way - and a way to seek social approval for the same reason the emerging LGB movement sometimes made similar claims.
> 
> ...


Can I make a polite request. 

Could you try and put more line breaks and "white space" in your posts. As you often write a lot with not many paragraphs. 

As a dyslexic I often find them very hard to read and end up skipping over large chunks, especially if in a bit of a rush. Which is a shame as I am genuinely really interested in reading what you have to say.

I appreciate that our style is largely instinctive and it is hard to change. But hey no harm in asking.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Oct 29, 2021)

teuchter said:


> The text quoted from the LGBA website (which isn't linked by the way, so I can't even find the original) seems pretty clear to me - they are against "coercive or manipulative" attempts to change someone's sexuality, but they think that religious people should still be free to discuss things including their sexuality within their faith group.



Anyone claiming they can change your sexuality for you is manipulative.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Oct 30, 2021)

Looking at some of the mainstream reporting of the Kathleen Stock thing, It's all being sold as 'woke students silence academic' in a way that seems calculated to increase hostility to trans people and supporters of trans rights. LGBA is mentioned in passing or not at all, possibly because their actions and their known connections to US fundamentalists are too far beyond the pale to try and defend. 

Expect Stock to continue to show up all over the place as the self-proclaimed voice of the silenced majority, with nobody at any point pointing out the irony in that.


----------



## smokedout (Oct 30, 2021)

SpookyFrank said:


> Looking at some of the mainstream reporting of the Kathleen Stock thing, It's all being sold as 'woke students silence academic' in a way that seems calculated to increase hostility to trans people and supporters of trans rights. LGBA is mentioned in passing or not at all, possibly because their actions and their known connections to US fundamentalists are too far beyond the pale to try and defend.
> 
> Expect Stock to continue to show up all over the place as the self-proclaimed voice of the silenced majority, with nobody at any point pointing out the irony in that.



The Guardian:  "Stock’s only “crime” is that she refuses to deny the material reality of biological sex."

That's why I think Christa Peterson's piece is important, it doesn't just nail Stock but you could write a pretty similar piece for pretty much everyone who claims they have been cancelled just for saying that sex is real.


----------



## smokedout (Oct 30, 2021)

kabbes said:


> The Tavistock is not Freudian.  Not all psychoanalysis is Freudian — they aren’t synonyms.  The Tavistock follows strands of psychoanalytic theory that branched off from Freudianism over 70 years ago.  The concepts it uses are not built on the concept of the bestial self (such as the idea of being driven by sexual instincts) at all. Instead, they are built on ideas that completely rejected that approach.   There was a big bust up about it in the 1940s and 1950s,  because they had completely different (and largely incompatible) conceptualisations of the formation of the unconscious



Freud was honoury vice president of the Portman Clinic which merged with the Tavistock, there is literally a statue of him outside the building and of their psychoanalysis services they say this:

"Psychoanalysis is based on the modern developments of the theories of Sigmund Freud. Freud believed that bad thoughts and experiences from childhood are repressed but continue to influence your feelings as an adult."

Obviously there have been developments in psychoanalysis since Freud's time, and there's reportedly a far smattering of Jungians working at GIDS - who have equally reactionary ideas about gender - but it would be incorrect to say Freudian thought no longer has influence at the Tavistock.


----------



## kabbes (Oct 30, 2021)

smokedout said:


> Freud was honoury vice president of the Portman Clinic which merged with the Tavistock, there is literally a statue of him outside the building and of their psychoanalysis services they say this:
> 
> "Psychoanalysis is based on the modern developments of the theories of Sigmund Freud. Freud believed that bad thoughts and experiences from childhood are repressed but continue to influence your feelings as an adult."
> 
> Obviously there have been developments in psychoanalysis since Freud's time, and there's reportedly a far smattering of Jungians working at GIDS - who have equally reactionary ideas about gender - but it would be incorrect to say Freudian thought no longer has influence at the Tavistock.


There is nothing inconsistent in that statement.  Psychoanalysis is indeed based on the modern developments of Freud, who did indeed believe that early experiences influence the adult.  However, that doesn't mean that modern psychoanalysis as practised by the Tavistock bears much relationship to Freudian psychoanalysis.  Classic Freudianism is based on the bestial self, i.e. that humans are driven by instinctive urges that get repressed.  It is the repression of these instincts that creates the unconscious.  By contrast, the British school of psychoanalysis is based on the relational self (which Freud also started to develop in his late years, but is really a post-Freudian approach and not classically associated with Freud).  The relational self sees life expressing and playing out relational patterns. It is not instincts that get repressed, but rather important relationships that can't be contained within awareness.  These two approaches are incompatible.  Now, I'm aware that I'm no expert on this subject, nor am I even slightly expert regarding the Tavistock.  But I do know that the Tavistock is built on the strands of the British school that use object relations theory.  That's quite distinct from Freudianism.

To be honest, this subject is deep and complex and I know just enough about it to know that I don't know that much about it.  If I were you, however, I would be cautious about making definitive statement about the psychoanalysis practised by the Tavistock based on a statue and a generic line from the public-facing part of their website.


----------



## smokedout (Oct 30, 2021)

kabbes said:


> There is nothing inconsistent in that statement.  Psychoanalysis is indeed based on the modern developments of Freud, who did indeed believe that early experiences influence the adult.  However, that doesn't mean that modern psychoanalysis as practised by the Tavistock bears much relationship to Freudian psychoanalysis.  Classic Freudianism is based on the bestial self, i.e. that humans are driven by instinctive urges that get repressed.  It is the repression of these instincts that creates the unconscious.  By contrast, the British school of psychoanalysis is based on the relational self (which Freud also started to develop in his late years, but is really a post-Freudian approach and not classically associated with Freud).  The relational self sees life expressing and playing out relational patterns. It is not instincts that get repressed, but rather important relationships that can't be contained within awareness.  These two approaches are incompatible.  Now, I'm aware that I'm no expert on this subject, nor am I even slightly expert regarding the Tavistock.  But I do know that the Tavistock is built on the strands of the British school that use object relations theory.  That's quite distinct from Freudianism.
> 
> To be honest, this subject is deep and complex and I know just enough about it to know that I don't know that much about it.  If I were you, however, I would be cautious about making definitive statement about the psychoanalysis practised by the Tavistock based on a statue and a generic line from the public-facing part of their website.



It's more based on the testimony of people who've used the service and the crap Tavistock whistleblower Marcus Evans has been putting out in his new book: Here's A Load of Stuff About Trans People That I Just Made Up In My Head.



> At this point, Freud raises his head, as they discuss envy and rivalry within family dynamics, asserting that _‘we believe unconscious envy has a part to play in the psychology of some trans-identities’_.
> 
> Freud pretty much sticks around for the rest of the book.
> 
> ...



https://lilymaynard.  (break) com/susan-marcus-evans-gender-dysphoria-a-review/


----------



## kabbes (Oct 31, 2021)

But don’t you see that your quote there pretty much does the opposite to the thing you are saying?  The _writer_ interprets something as “Freudian”. They then ask the analyst if this is right, and the response is basically, “not really”! The analyst is asked if they would they describe themselves as Freudian and the response is, “I would describe it as psychoanalytic” — ie the analyst is making a distinction.  The analyst agrees that Freud was “the lead” — ie he started it all off— but then says there are “several theories explored”. This is typical for the way an expert in something tries to use the popular understanding of it as a way into explaining further depth. In other words, the suggestion of Freudianism is always the interpretation of the (inexpert) writer of the piece, not the analyst himself.

When you read the article, it is clear that Evans is no Freudian, in fact. There are clues if you know a bit about the various schools, such as his line, “_It may also lead to a development of a phantasy of the death of the self and the rebirth of a new self._”  The use of the concept of “phantasy” there is Kleinism — Melanie Klein was one of the founders of object relations theory within the relational self and was the one who had a big bust up with Anna Freud in the 1940s, leading to the split I was talking about earlier.   Evans is using “phantasy” in terms of object relations — the death of the “bad self”, essentially, is my amateur reading of it.  This is a defence against having a part of the self that the mind finds reprehensible.

Similarly, this bit:



> The Evanses see trans-identification as likely to be a defence against past psychological trauma, both external and internal. They suggest that the trans-identified young person has “a mind at odds with the physically sexed body” noting that many of them “have complex needs with co-morbid problems such as autism, histories of abuse or trauma, social phobias, depression, eating disorders and other mental health symptoms”. Because of this, a thorough assessment of all areas of the young person’s life is necessary. *They believe that such work will benefit a young person whether or not they go on to transition*.


They’re talking here about how things like traumatic relationships and events become part of the unconscious, and that various psychic defences result. Again, this is all relational stuff.

I’d also note the bold sentence, by the way. They’re saying in that quote that transition may well be the best way for somebody to resolve the tension within them. But regardless of this, it is helpful to also deal with the relational structures that may well have caused various co-morbidities too. In a way, this is an article of faith for psychoanalysis — _everybody_ would benefit from it.

I do have criticisms of this British school of psychoanalysis. However, these aren’t anything to do with the caricature being painted of it, or it’s relational underpinnings. When I look at what Evans actually said in that article you quote, I can’t honestly see much in it that I would massively disagree with. He’s simply recognising that nobody is born as a ready-made person, but  are formed by the interaction of intra-psychic processes with social circumstances. I don’t disagree with that.  He’s then suggesting that in his experience, clients presenting with a trans-identity have things to deal with that aren’t resolved just by performing a medical procedure. I have no way of verifying that statement, but it certainly doesn’t seem like a surprising one to make.


----------



## Wolveryeti (Oct 31, 2021)

I will just observe that the debate has become needlessly vitriolic. On the face of things there is very little to argue about - a plurality of people in UK polls support self-identification and use of toilet facilities aligned with that. But there just hasn't been a discussion about how society uses language around gender. Government should be having these discussions and should be arranging citizens' assemblies to find a way through, but instead it is shamefully exploiting the whole thing as a wedge issue. This has I feel led to people feeling that definitions have been foisted on them by unaccountable entities - and this is creating anger. This has been compounded by some very clumsy use of language (e.g. 'menstruators', 'womb-havers') - supposedly to be more precise about language for (amongst other things) medical reasons - but I see no reason for e.g. smear tests why you couldn't just say 'women and trans men'.


----------



## Kevbad the Bad (Oct 31, 2021)

I quite agree Wolveryeti that this 'debate' is too vitriolic. People are routinely accused of bigotry and transphobia on the 'gender critical' side, and both sides (and people in between) are routinely accused of homophobia and misogyny. This happens on urban, but is much worse 'out there'. Bad faith is too often assumed to be the default assumption for your opponents. This drives many to adopt a more extreme view than they might otherwise adopt. It also drives people away.

You mention polling, but polling does not reveal any settled opinions. What it does show is a lot of uncertainty, lots of 'don't knows'. You mention 'plurality' of the population thinking one thing, not a majority. People's understanding of transgender varies a lot, many assuming transgender means of necessity that surgery or hormone treatment is required. For some their views change when they realise this may not be the case.

I can well understand some transgender people being really impatient on this issue, as it affects their lives directly and personally. But others have strong views too which are widely held.


----------



## smokedout (Oct 31, 2021)

kabbes said:


> But don’t you see that your quote there pretty much does the opposite to the thing you are saying?  The _writer_ interprets something as “Freudian”. They then ask the analyst if this is right, and the response is basically, “not really”! The analyst is asked if they would they describe themselves as Freudian and the response is, “I would describe it as psychoanalytic” — ie the analyst is making a distinction.  The analyst agrees that Freud was “the lead” — ie he started it all off— but then says there are “several theories explored”. This is typical for the way an expert in something tries to use the popular understanding of it as a way into explaining further depth. In other words, the suggestion of Freudianism is always the interpretation of the (inexpert) writer of the piece, not the analyst himself.
> 
> When you read the article, it is clear that Evans is no Freudian, in fact. There are clues if you know a bit about the various schools, such as his line, “_It may also lead to a development of a phantasy of the death of the self and the rebirth of a new self._”  The use of the concept of “phantasy” there is Kleinism — Melanie Klein was one of the founders of object relations theory within the relational self and was the one who had a big bust up with Anna Freud in the 1940s, leading to the split I was talking about earlier.   Evans is using “phantasy” in terms of object relations — the death of the “bad self”, essentially, is my amateur reading of it.  This is a defence against having a part of the self that the mind finds reprehensible.
> 
> ...


"in his experience"  lol

I'm not aware of him ever claiming he has treated a trans child, he worked in adult services, and the Tavistock do not treat gender dysphoria in adults.   He may have come across some trans adult patients in the course of his work but he has never spoken of doing any in depth therapeautic work concerning their gender identity with them, and the way he discusses them is somewhat odd.  

His wife and co-author Sue Evans was a nurse when she worked at GIDS, so would not have been involved in any in depth psychoanalytic work either, and it's unclear whether she worked there for more than a year, she's been relentlessly cagey about it.

There should be no more assumption that a child presenting as trans needs psychoanalysis than there should be if a child presents as gay or lesbian, and I couldn't really care less whether the therapist is more influenced by Klein, Freud or Jung.  That doesn't mean counselling or therapy is never appropriate, or that anyone should be rushed into treatment, and they very much aren't currently.  Out of around 3000 referrals only 141 kids were referred for hormone blockers in the most recent period according to the evidence in the Bell case.  

His mealy mouthed comments about whether they go on to transition or not are disingenuous.  Psychoanalysis takes a long time, and time is a factor when puberty has begun.  And psychoanalysis aiming to change a person's gender identity is harmful, it is not benign.  It is conversion therapy.

Nowhere does he acknowledge what both research and clinical experience shows which is that when a cross sexed identity is persistent and insistent throughout childhood and lasts into puberty then the child almost always goes on to become a trans adult - and these are the only kids that end up having any treatment in the UK.  Nowhere does he acknowledge that it is quite likely that a child presenting as trans, is just trans, and that's okay.  He has spoken at events alongside supporters of conversion therapy organised by virulent transphobes Posie Parker and Venice Allen.  

He has repeatedly compared being trans to anorexia. He regularly scare-mongers about a shadowy trans lobby shutting down research. He has spoken approvingly of the work of Kenneth Zucker, whose recommendations included forcing trans children to play with toys and wear clothes associated with their biological sex.  It is pretty clear from his actions what he believes which is that trans children should be subject to intrusive psychoanalysis in an attempt to cure them.  He is an advocate of conversion therapy and should have no part in this debate.  And the bats can fuck off as well.


----------



## belboid (Oct 31, 2021)

I see the good ol' grauniad has decided that the most appropriate person to write a piece on Stock is Rachel Cooke.  The woman who completely misrepresented Amia Srivanan's argument when interviewing her, and walking out because she, AM, 'drinking the Kool Aid that is Judith Butler' and whose twitter profile is a transphobic cartoon. And who is too think to understand that airbnb's dont leave you dinner.

May as well let Yaxley-Lennon write about muslim values.


----------



## 8ball (Oct 31, 2021)

belboid said:


> I see the good ol' grauniad has decided that the most appropriate person to write a piece on Stock is Rachel Cooke.  The woman who completely misrepresented Amia Srivanan's argument when interviewing her, and walking out because she, AM, 'drinking the Kool Aid that is Judith Butler' and whose twitter profile is a transphobic cartoon. And who is too think to understand that airbnb's dont leave you dinner.
> 
> May as well let Yaxley-Lennon write about muslim values.



The Guardian (particularly the UK as opposed to US version) has form when it comes to this, but I’m still feeling disappointed for some reason.  This is in no way a good faith article.


----------



## little_legs (Oct 31, 2021)

Kevbad the Bad said:


> You mention polling, but polling does not reveal any settled opinions. What it does show is a lot of uncertainty, lots of 'don't knows'. You mention 'plurality' of the population thinking one thing, not a majority. People's understanding of transgender varies a lot, many assuming transgender means of necessity that surgery or hormone treatment is required. For some their views change when they realise this may not be the case.
> 
> I can well understand some transgender people being really impatient on this issue, as it affects their lives directly and personally. But others have strong views too which are widely held.


Every survey shows a majority of people in the UK are in favour of trans rights, with the majority getting larger the younger the survey sample is. This site is just replete with brainwashed radfems who will accept any amount of harm to women they deem _not feminine enough._


----------



## bimble (Oct 31, 2021)

little_legs said:


> This site is just replete with brainwashed radfems who will accept any amount of harm to women they deem _not feminine enough._


Give it a rest ffs.  Unless writing that made you feel really good and or clever, in which case whatever floats yr boat i suppose.


----------



## little_legs (Oct 31, 2021)

bimble said:


> Give it a rest ffs.  Unless writing that made you feel really good and or clever, in which case whatever floats yr boat i suppose.


That thing about the surveys must have been reiterated on this thread a few times, I am probably guilty of repeating the obvious.

I doesn't make me feel good or smart to point out that trans exclusionary statements and posts are being made on here all the fucking time.


----------



## 8ball (Oct 31, 2021)

I don't know about the overall polling landscape but this one is something of a curate's egg.


----------



## Athos (Oct 31, 2021)

little_legs said:


> Every survey shows a majority of people in the UK are in favour of trans rights...



I'm not sure this is an entirely accurate picture of what opinion polls show.  For instance, the one 8ball referred to shows that most people think that trans women who've not had surgery should not be allowed into women's changing rooms (which would actually amount to rolling back existing trans rights).


----------



## bimble (Oct 31, 2021)

little_legs I understand that you feel this website is an outlier that's teeming with terfs but talking about it being "replete with brainwashed radfems who will accept any amount of harm to women they deem _not feminine enough" _was really out there, densely packed with so many Notions that i found it funny, sorry.


----------



## Athos (Oct 31, 2021)

bimble said:


> little_legs I understand that you feel this website is an outlier that's teeming with terfs but talking about it being "replete with brainwashed radfems who will accept any amount of harm to women they deem _not feminine enough" _was really out there, densely packed with so many Notions that i found it funny, sorry.



It's an absolutely bonkers statement.  There's a handful of people here who are quite open about the fact that they don't consider trans women to be women.  Not only are they not radfems, but even they think trans women should be protected from harm (albeit not to the detriment of cis women's rights, with which they consider there to be a tension).  Their position isn't based on trans women not being feminine enough, but on them being of the male sex.  Notwithstanding that I don't agree with everything they say, the idea that they're brainwashed is pretty arrogant.


----------



## little_legs (Oct 31, 2021)

Athos said:


> I'm not sure this is an entirely accurate picture of what opinion polls show.  For instance, the one 8ball referred to shows that most people think that trans women who've not had surgery should not be allowed into women's changing rooms (which would actually amount to rolling back existing trans rights).


But it does show that as whole UK is not particularly transphobic, and that people under 25 are more accepting of trans women regardless of whether they had a reassignment surgery.


----------



## Athos (Oct 31, 2021)

little_legs said:


> But it does show that a whole UK is not particularly transphobic, and that people under 25 are more accepting of trans women regardless of whether they had a reassignment surgery.



Yes, it does show that, too.


----------



## little_legs (Oct 31, 2021)

bimble said:


> little_legs I understand that you feel this website is an outlier that's teeming with terfs but talking about it being "replete with brainwashed radfems who will accept any amount of harm to women they deem _not feminine enough" _was really out there, densely packed with so many Notions that i found it funny, sorry.


Aye, I accept it's not helpful. Maybe I should have said that it feels like a lot of the posts on this site appear to be influenced by the appalling opinions of terf journalists. My apologies.


----------



## little_legs (Oct 31, 2021)

Athos said:


> It's an absolutely bonkers statement.  There's a handful of people here who are quite open about the fact that they don't consider trans women to be women.  Not only are they not radfems, but even they think trans women should be *protected *from harm (albeit not to the detriment of cis women's rights, with which they consider there to be a tension).  Their position isn't based on trans women not being feminine enough, but on them being of the male sex.  Notwithstanding that I don't agree with everything they say, the idea that they're brainwashed is pretty arrogant.


_Protected_ like those Guardian types funded by American evangelists would have you to believe.


----------



## bimble (Oct 31, 2021)

little_legs said:


> Aye, I accept it's not helpful. Maybe I should have said that it feels like a lot of the posts on this site appear to be influenced by the appalling opinions of terf journalists. My apologies.


No apology necessary! I don't think your post was about the mental states or points of view of anyone apart from you tbh, and i wasn't offended or anything.


----------



## Kevbad the Bad (Oct 31, 2021)

little_legs said:


> Every survey shows a majority of people in the UK are in favour of trans rights, with the majority getting larger the younger the survey sample is. This site is just replete with brainwashed radfems who will accept any amount of harm to women they deem _not feminine enough._


Seeing as you are replying to me I think it's safe to assume that I am being lumped in with brainwashed radfems. In which case thanks at least for not calling me a fascist or right wing Christian. Small mercies. Anyhow, I wouldn't even call my self a feminist necessarily, not without reservations. I also don't think I'm brainwashed at all. Enquiring mind and all that. All I was doing was pointing out that the polling on this issue is not straightforward. Even if it was, either way, it still wouldn't say who was right, just what most, or a plurality, of people thought. My doubts and uncertainties around all of this won't go away until I am convinced. I'm not alone in that.


----------



## Athos (Oct 31, 2021)

little_legs said:


> _Protected_ like those Guardian types funded by American evangelists would have you to believe.


I guess you'd have to ask them.


----------



## bimble (Oct 31, 2021)

little_legs said:


> _Protected_ like those Guardian types funded by American evangelists would have you to believe.


Who are these people who write for the guardian and are also paid by American evangelists? Can you say a name an example?


----------



## little_legs (Oct 31, 2021)

Hadley Freeman


----------



## bimble (Oct 31, 2021)

little_legs said:


> Hadley Freeman


Hadley Freeman gets money from American evangelists?
If you are asserting this please try to link to some evidence. Its a bit weird otherwise.


----------



## smokedout (Oct 31, 2021)

little_legs said:


> Aye, I accept it's not helpful. Maybe I should have said that it feels like a lot of the posts on this site appear to be influenced by the appalling opinions of terf journalists. My apologies.


To be fair the vast majority of trans hostile posts on these boards have come from men, inline with the polling posted up thread.


----------



## little_legs (Oct 31, 2021)

A while back the Guardian US published an open letter criticising Freeman.

Edit: I'll find the letter when I get to my laptop. It's not a secret that evangelicals are exploiting the British terfs in the mainstream media.


----------



## Cloo (Oct 31, 2021)

Wolveryeti said:


> I will just observe that the debate has become needlessly vitriolic. On the face of things there is very little to argue about - a plurality of people in UK polls support self-identification and use of toilet facilities aligned with that. But there just hasn't been a discussion about how society uses language around gender. Government should be having these discussions and should be arranging citizens' assemblies to find a way through, but instead it is shamefully exploiting the whole thing as a wedge issue. This has I feel led to people feeling that definitions have been foisted on them by unaccountable entities - and this is creating anger. This has been compounded by some very clumsy use of language (e.g. 'menstruators', 'womb-havers') - supposedly to be more precise about language for (amongst other things) medical reasons - but I see no reason for e.g. smear tests why you couldn't just say 'women and trans men'.


There was a very good thread on Twitter the other day from a trans woman reiterating that trans people have never 'demanded' the removal of the word 'woman' or 'mother' etc, but they have asked could medical language reflect that some people who aren't women might need smear tests etc and make sure they get the check ups and treatment they need, and she specifically said this is fine in fact best to be 'women and people with cervixes' etc so it includes everyone.


----------



## bimble (Oct 31, 2021)

little_legs said:


> A while back the Guardian US published an open letter criticising Freeman.


Is that sentence your evidence for your allegation that she is funded by American evangelical xtians?
i mean, if thats all you've got i'll stop asking.

There is a real & interesting thing here, somewhere nearby, about how the worst people in the world (evangelicals, right wing extremists, the Republican Party, the Polish government, 'traditional family' promoters and all the many assorted dregs of that kind are absolutely _loving_ this, as a wedge issue, and will leverage the hell out of it. And at the same time it is a real - and eternal - problem that some people will turn a blind eye to and even pal up with the absolute worst shitheads just because they think they are aligned on one thing.
That's what actually scares me, the leverage that is being wrung from this by properly dangerous people.


As an aside, not quite an illustration, check this out, Alex Jones just met Graham Lineham on a lesbian dating app.


----------



## Kevbad the Bad (Oct 31, 2021)

little_legs said:


> A while back the Guardian US published an open letter criticising Freeman.
> 
> Edit: I'll find the letter when I get to my laptop. It's not a secret that evangelicals are exploiting the British terfs in the mainstream media.


Just out of interest, why do you think all these left wing radfem terfs are being exploited? Why haven't they noticed? Or could it just be that they disagree with you?


----------



## Raheem (Oct 31, 2021)

Kevbad the Bad said:


> All I was doing was pointing out that the polling on this issue is not straightforward. Even if it was, either way, it still wouldn't say who was right, just what most, or a plurality, of people thought.


No, polling doesn't tell you which side is right and which wrong. But in this case, I think it does undermine some key claims and arguments of the gencrit lobby.

Namely:

That a more traditional view of sex and gender represents self-evident common sense. If that were so, you would expect a healthy majority of the public to subscribe to that view, but they appear not to.

That we are being steamrollered into accepting trans rights by men who refuse to listen to the views of women. How can this make sense when most women support trans rights, and are much more likely to do so than men?


----------



## Athos (Oct 31, 2021)

Raheem said:


> That we are being steamrollered into accepting trans rights by men who refuse to listen to the views of women.


I guess they'd point to the fact that pre-op trans women have access to women's changing rooms despite the fact that (as the poll shows) most women don't want that.


----------



## smokedout (Oct 31, 2021)

bimble said:


> Is that sentence your evidence for your allegation that she is funded by American evangelical xtians?
> i mean, if thats all you've got i'll stop asking.
> 
> There is a real & interesting thing here, somewhere nearby, about how the worst people in the world (evangelicals, right wing extremists, the Republican Party, the Polish government, 'traditional family' promoters and all the many assorted dregs of that kind are absolutely _loving_ this, as a wedge issue, and will leverage the hell out of it. And at the same time it is a real - and eternal - problem that some people will turn a blind eye to and even pal up with the absolute worst shitheads just because they think they are aligned on one thing.
> ...




Lineham's behaviour on that app is really one of the lowest points of this debate.  It's an app which openly welcomes queer, trans and non binary people, some of the people he has outed to his thousands of readers said in their profile they were not out in their everyday lives.  He has no idea where they live or what their circumstances are, he could cause real damage to someone doing shit like this, just because they had a profile on a queer dating app, and he, a straight man, doesn't like it.


----------



## smokedout (Oct 31, 2021)

Kevbad the Bad said:


> Just out of interest, why do you think all these left wing radfem terfs are being exploited? Why haven't they noticed? Or could it just be that they disagree with you?



Or could it be that their obsession with trans people has caused them to abandon any other principles and work directly with evangelicals, and the right/alt right, which many of them have chosen to do.


----------



## Raheem (Oct 31, 2021)

Athos said:


> I guess they'd point to the fact that pre-op trans women have access to women's changing rooms despite the fact that (as the poll shows) most women don't want that.


They'd be missing the point. This hasn't happened because it represents the views of men and those of women have been ignored. Across the board, men are less supportive of trans rights than women.

(As an aside, though, I think there are likely methodological problems with those "what about pre-ops" questions. Repeating a question and providing more information the second time may seem to some people like an invitation to reconsider. It also puts responses unnecessarily on a scale, and so introduces a potential end-aversion bias - people avoid putting themselves on one end or another of a scale. Moreover,  allowing post-op trans women, but not pre-op trans women, to use the women's loos is in reality impracticable. So the survey leaves us unsure as what women's attitudes would be wrt real world policy. Would those women who support post-op wees but not pre-op wees, given that the question is not really divisible in that way, tend to prefer on balance a come one come all policy, or would they prefer to exclude all trans women? We don't know, because the question wasn't asked.)


----------



## Raheem (Oct 31, 2021)

bimble said:


> As an aside, not quite an illustration, check this out, Alex Jones just met Graham Lineham on a lesbian dating app.



Do we think this is actually Linehan? I'm not sure it passes the basic test of looking like him. What am I missing?


----------



## Colin Hunt (Oct 31, 2021)

Athos said:


> I guess they'd point to the fact that pre-op trans women have access to women's changing rooms despite the fact that (as the poll shows) most women don't want that.


The poll shows that nearly 30% of women polled don't know whether pre-op trans women should have access to women's changing rooms. I'd say you're on pretty dodgy ground talking about what 'most women' want based on a 900 person poll in which almost 1/3 say they don't know. I'd also say that framing your post in that way is slightly disingenuous.


----------



## keybored (Oct 31, 2021)

Raheem said:


> What am I missing?











						Father Ted's Graham Linehan joins queer women's dating app in stunt
					

A statement from the dating app said they support ‘all women and queer folk’.




					metro.co.uk


----------



## Orang Utan (Oct 31, 2021)

Raheem said:


> Do we think this is actually Linehan? I'm not sure it passes the basic test of looking like him. What am I missing?


It’s definitely him as he’s boasted about it and posted those pics himself on his shitty blog. As to whether the clip itself is genuine and not just edited slyly, I dunno, but the fact that Jones has gone to the bother of videoing printed out photos from the internet instead of displaying them digitally and has also not bothered to format them so they end up spreading over two pages - well, it strongly suggests it’s either genuine fucking old man idiocy or an extremely well thought out troll/joke


----------



## Raheem (Oct 31, 2021)

Orang Utan said:


> It’s definitely him as he’s boasted about it and posted those pics himself.
> As to whether the clip itself is genuine and not just edited slyly, I dunno, but the fact that he’s printed out photos from the internet and not bothered to format them so they end up spreading over two pages strongly suggests it’s either genuine or an extremely well thought out troll/joke


I wonder if they got the pics from Linehan's "research" and just didn't know/care that one of them was the daring investigative journalist himself.


----------



## Orang Utan (Oct 31, 2021)

Raheem said:


> I wonder if they got the pics from Linehan's "research" and just didn't know/care that one of them was the daring investigative journalist himself.


I doubt Jones is even aware of Linehan and his shithousery


----------



## Athos (Oct 31, 2021)

Raheem said:


> They'd be missing the point. This hasn't happened because it represents the views of men and those of women have been ignored.


That only holds true for those who don't consider trans women to be men.


----------



## Raheem (Oct 31, 2021)

Orang Utan said:


> I doubt Jones is even aware of Linehan and his shithousery


No, but his researchers might have been, or might have been led to him when they googled "man on lesbian dating ap".


----------



## Orang Utan (Oct 31, 2021)

Raheem said:


> No, but his researchers might have been, or might have been led to him when they googled "man on lesbian dating ap".


I doubt he or they care either way


----------



## Athos (Oct 31, 2021)

Colin Hunt said:


> The poll shows that nearly 30% of women polled don't know whether pre-op trans women should have access to women's changing rooms. I'd say you're on pretty dodgy ground talking about what 'most women' want based on a 900 person poll in which almost 1/3 say they don't know. I'd also say that framing your post in that way is slightly disingenuous.


The poll shows there's not majority support amongst women for pre-op trans women's access to female changing rooms (and a plurality that's actively against it).  As to the sample size, 900 seems reasonable, and I note that the objection wasn't raised to counter earlier claims that it demonstrates women's trans inclusivity.


----------



## hitmouse (Nov 2, 2021)

bimble said:


> As an aside, not quite an illustration, check this out, Alex Jones just met Graham Lineham on a lesbian dating app.


As an aside to that aside, I briefly forgot the difference between Alex Jones and Alex James and was wondering what possible connection the Britpop cheese man could have to all this.


----------



## Serene (Nov 2, 2021)

frogwoman said:


> So if trans people shouldn't stand for elected positions and shouldn't take part in sports etc what are they supposed to do then? It honestly seems to me that some people want them to be pushed out of anything 'visible' whatsoever


It needs more people who are trans, presenting programs on the Television, especially the BBC. For cis people it is quite a culture shock to see trans people. It will take quite a time for it to be seen as "normal". Celebrations such as pride are certainly working. Gay people are now almost totally accepted. Trans is much more difficult to put across. It needs a constant positive view of trans people being shown on the Television. Drip, drip, drip.
As for the Sport issue, in my opinion, Trans people arent doing themselves any good by entering cis-female sporting competions, with quite often a much stronger body and winning everything, because they are alienating themselves, not only alienating themselves but creating dislike for themselves, It is not good to do sports. There ought to be a Trans Sport section, this would promote publicity and would be benign, especially if there were some great positive characters in Trans Sport on the Television.


----------



## l'Otters (Nov 2, 2021)

.


----------



## co-op (Nov 2, 2021)

bimble said:


> When you say that gender critical feminism is "a conservative movement that asserts that men are always stronger and inherently violent so the best women can hope for is to establish safe spaces and ferociously police the borders of womanhood to prevent any males from entering those spaces. "



I haven't read the post you're responding to so I don't know if you've correctly paraphrased what has been said but this ^^ is a wrong and misleading characterisation of what radical gender critical feminism says about men. It does not say that men are inherently violent.


----------



## Serene (Nov 2, 2021)

Currently, in Ladies fashions, and especially with shoes and boots, Ladies are wearing boots and shoes that are almost fully masculine. Of course it is a trend that has happened with women wanting more money in the workplace and dressing like men to show they can do an equal job. The range of clothes goes almost the full gamut, from feminine through androgenous and into masculine. Conversely there has been a trend towards more androgenous fashions for men, but, men wont wear it because a lot of them are masculine anyway and the ones who would wear it are frightened of meeting with violence. I would go so far as to say it isnt Ladies whom are an opponent of trans-women but is in objective terms, Men. It is violence from men that is the opponent of Trans-women. Violence friom Men against Women is also still happening and was the reason for many protests this year. I have to say, in my opinion, violence, ego and delusion are three of the main enemies of individual liberty.


----------



## 8ball (Nov 2, 2021)

Serene said:


> It needs more people who are trans, presenting programs on the Television, especially the BBC. For cis people it is quite a culture shock to see trans people. It will take quite a time for it to be seen as "normal".


Hell, seems like just the other day a bunch of parents got freaked out because a kids' telly presenter had a minor disability.


----------



## Serene (Nov 2, 2021)

8ball said:


> Hell, seems like just the other day a bunch of parents got freaked out because a kids' telly presenter had a minor disability.


Which disability?


----------



## 8ball (Nov 2, 2021)

Serene said:


> Which disability?



One arm partly formed.
Was actually a decade ago - time flies!


----------



## hitmouse (Nov 2, 2021)

If anyone fancies reading what Sara Ahmed has to say, here's some Sara Ahmed:








						Gender Critical = Gender Conservative
					

Content Warning: The following post includes a discussion of transphobia and transmisogyny. How has gender become a map of a moment? Why do so many movements present themselves as against gender? I…




					feministkilljoys.com


----------



## Serene (Nov 2, 2021)

People objecting to a person on Telly with a partly formed arm? A decade ago. Some types of people dont like to see people whom are different to them.


----------



## 8ball (Nov 2, 2021)

Serene said:


> People objecting to a person on Telly with a partly formed arm? A decade ago. Some types of people dont like to see people whom are different to them.



Yeah, it's exactly that.  There will be similar howls when trans people become more visible in "nothing to do with trans status" places.
It's real shame she left the channel, but I hear she writes children's books which are doing very well now.

I know it was a decade ago, but I don't feel like we've really moved forward much in that time.


----------



## Serene (Nov 2, 2021)

8ball said:


> One arm partly formed.
> Was actually a decade ago - time flies!





8ball said:


> Yeah, it's exactly that.  There will be similar howls when trans people become more visible in "nothing to do with trans status" places.
> It's real shame she left the channel, but I hear she writes children's books which are doing very well now.
> 
> I know it was a decade ago, but I don't feel like we've really moved forward much in that time.


Trans-Women is a much much more difficult genre in which to change public opinion towards being favourable. It is rare that a Trans-Woman can " pass " as a congenital Woman. Such types of people, as with Gay people, have been criminalised and persecuted for a long time. So for the majority of Trans-Woman who decide to live publicly as a female, well, as they themselves know, they are facing violence every time they go outside. The general Public will take a long long time to see it as " normal ". Gay people, although still subject to violence from men ( as indeed are all types of people! ), and fought long and hard for an acceptance, had it easier than Trans-Women are facing.
Andrej Pejic, the androgenous model, became Andreja Pejic, and that is a wonderful and positive story ( her story ). She benefitted from very much passing as the Woman that she subjectively is. For the majority of Trans-Women who simply look like men, well, realistically it is going to be a long time before the Public get used to seeing them dressed en femme.


----------



## Raheem (Nov 2, 2021)

8ball said:


> Yeah, it's exactly that.  There will be similar howls when trans people become more visible in "nothing to do with trans status" places.
> It's real shame she left the channel, but I hear she writes children's books which are doing very well now.
> 
> I know it was a decade ago, but I don't feel like we've really moved forward much in that time.


I don't think it was parents in general complaining, just some confused weirdos. The idea was that kids would be frightened.  

That said, I do expect that putting a trans person on Cbeebies as a presenter now would put the licence fee at serious risk.


----------



## Serge Forward (Nov 2, 2021)

Raheem said:


> That said, I do expect that putting a trans person on Cbeebies as a presenter now would put the licence fee at serious risk.


They should really do this*. That would piss off the 'war on woke' brigade no end   






*They won't


----------



## Serene (Nov 2, 2021)

I think they key towards bringing all people together is the trend towards andogenous fashions. Most Women now wear joggers and trainers or androgenous types of footwear, and so do the men! A person could dress androgenously and be on trend! I know this isnt nearby any solution, however, each sex can dress near alike the other nowadays. I have noticed manbags becoming more feminine, and the men who wear them are very brave. Pioneers.


----------



## 8ball (Nov 2, 2021)

Raheem - There were enough complaints to be taken seriously (and a lot of support for her tbf).  Was a case of parents' fear being picked up on by kids imo.  V. depressing.  Loads of kids loved her and there were plenty who didn't even notice her arm, with most just asking a question about it and accepting that sometimes some people are born a little different.

Serene - yes it was kind of my point that if even a minor disability causes such a fuss, then in the febrile climate we have now things seem very dificult.


----------



## Serene (Nov 2, 2021)

8ball said:


> Raheem - There were enough complaints to be taken seriously (and a lot of support for her tbf).  Was a case of parents' fear being picked up on by kids imo.  V. depressing.  Loads of kids loved her and there were plenty who didn't even notice her arm, with most just asking a question about it and accepting that sometimes some people are born a little different.
> 
> Serene - yes it was kind of my point that if even a minor disability causes such a fuss, then in the febrile climate we have now things seem very dificult.


It takes a long long time before the Public see something very unusual as normal. Generations.


----------



## IC3D (Nov 2, 2021)

I get the feeling that the most bitter fighting is between lesbians and trans women who identify as lesbians, I can't see that getting resolved soon. It seems really toxic from what I've seen on twitter. I guess that's the internet for you.


----------



## Raheem (Nov 2, 2021)

_Some_ lesbians.


----------



## smokedout (Nov 2, 2021)

hitmouse said:


> If anyone fancies reading what Sara Ahmed has to say, here's some Sara Ahmed:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Was just going to post that.  I think it's important, particularly for the cis men who have dived into this debate to protect women, that it is understood that a lot of feminists, particularly internationally, see the aims and tactics of the gender critical movement as being harmful for women.  The religious/alt right hasn't entered this debate because they are worried about women being attacked in toilets but because they have recognised that gender critical feminism contains within it a deeply reactionary seed which is more likely to end up enforcing gender conformity than liberating women. 

It's difficult to see how things like bathroom bills, or even forcing the gender freaks to use 'third spaces' will do anything but entrench social pressure to conform to gendered expectations.  A lot of feminists are opposed to this rhetoric, not because they are woke, or want to 'be kind' but because they can see the dangers for women in this trajectory.

And those dangers are already manifesting.  The rise of wankers like Andy Ngo, Toby Young and Douglas Murray as men who now feel empowered to speak on (their brand of) feminism.  The anti-vaxxer Keira Bell now threatening Gillick competence in the courts backed by evangelical lawyers.  The rolling back of protections for women, or lack of support for them, because they are 'pointless'.  As an example mumsnet recently tried to get a campaign going to force Liz Truss to re-established gender pay gap  reporting which was suspended due to Covid.  The readership of the feminist board were unanimous - what's the point, no-one knows what a woman is anymore, despite the fact that trans women, who live and work as women, probably make up around 0.1% of women overall.  The undermining of the Equality Act by claiming the permitted exemptions to discrimination in the act represent 'sex based rights' - something which could be used to call for straight based rights, or race based rights on exactly the same legal grounds (the exemptions apply to all the protected characteristics).

We currently have a government in power, and a Women's and Equalities Minister in Liz Truss, who would wipe out all legal workplace protections for women, includng the Equality Act, if they get the chance.  Truss ran a think tank calling for measures exactly along those lines.  Exactly what protections are gender critical feminists prepared to sacrifice in the name of owning the trans?

I think all this points to one of the reasons for the generational divide on this issue amongst feminists.  The legacy of the gender critical movement could prove pretty devastating to the next generation of women.  So think on that chaps before you stick your oar in.  There are much wider issues at stake in ths conflict and you might not turn out to have been on women's side.


----------



## Ms T (Nov 2, 2021)

Raheem said:


> I don't think it was parents in general complaining, just some confused weirdos. The idea was that kids would be frightened.
> 
> That said, I do expect that putting a trans person on Cbeebies as a presenter now would put the licence fee at serious risk.



There already is one:









						Dr Ronx Ikharia: The trans non-binary doctor and TV presenter inspiring youth today
					

The medic is one of 10 everyday LGBTQ heroes honoured at the Attitude Pride Awards 2021, supported by Clifford Chance.




					attitude.co.uk


----------



## smmudge (Nov 2, 2021)

hitmouse said:


> If anyone fancies reading what Sara Ahmed has to say, here's some Sara Ahmed:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I took Sara Ahmed's course for one of my masters modules, she gave me a first for an essay about race and psychiatry


----------



## 8ball (Nov 2, 2021)

Ms T said:


> There already is one:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Didn't know that. 
Kind of an occasional third presenter on the show, and nonbinary androgynous types aren't the most likely to raise hackles, but still encouraging.


----------



## Serene (Nov 2, 2021)

I havent heard of Dr Ronx. I am reading through the article. Here is an interesting quote from them.

“It was important for me in that show to be clear about how to do it safely and to show the world of trans non- binary people,” they maintain. “I just want the world to know that we exist. You may not get it, you may not like it, but it’s making space for us to exist on this spectrum of life.”

😁

Et aussi

Ronx shrugs off the suggestion, too, that being an ambassador for their community is anything but a privilege: "When people ask, is it hard being trans non-binary on telly, in media? Is it hard having a voice? I say no, because everything that I am is a bonus. I only ever thought that I would be a doctor.”


They go on: “There are so many people who have got so much to give, but don’t have the, kind of, assertiveness that I do, that I feel annoyed for, because hearing ‘Who cares about trans people?’ ‘Who cares about racism? Isn’t racism dead?’ ‘Feminism, who needs feminism?’ – hearing all of that rhetoric as a young person is tough.


“Without visible role models, you can succumb to being, like, ‘What’s the bloody point if people are going to vote Trump? What’s the point if people are always going to have right-wing views? What’s the point if, when I go to work, I don’t see people that look like me? What’s the point if there are discriminatory policies and guidance that basically mean that my existence is harder than other people’s?’


“It’s those people that I think of when I do things like this,” Ronx asserts.


----------



## Ms T (Nov 2, 2021)

8ball said:


> Didn't know that.
> Kind of an occasional third presenter on the show, and nonbinary androgynous types aren't the most likely to raise hackles, but still encouraging.



I think given that only a very small percentage of the population are trans, and an even smaller amount are TV presenters, it's definitely encouraging.


----------



## Orang Utan (Nov 2, 2021)

8ball said:


> Didn't know that.
> Kind of an occasional third presenter on the show, and nonbinary androgynous types aren't the most likely to raise hackles, but still encouraging.


Dunno about that. Have seen an ex-Urban poster on Twitter describe non-binary people as ‘self-obsessed’.


----------



## Raheem (Nov 2, 2021)

Ms T said:


> There already is one:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I didn't know, although this is CBBC rather than Cbeebies. Less watched by parents.


----------



## 8ball (Nov 2, 2021)

Orang Utan said:


> Dunno about that. Have seen an ex-Urban poster on Twitter describe non-binary people as ‘self-obsessed’.



Ronx hardly comes over as self-obsessed on the show.  Though being non-threatening and a good telly presenter didnt do the lass with the short arm that much hood tbf.


----------



## Serene (Nov 2, 2021)

Allegedly Terry Gilliam, the Monty Python person, has been cancelled by staff at his new production at the Old Vic due to staff unease at some of his previous comments. Allegedly some of his staff were unhappy with previous controversial remarks made by the Actor. He recently defended the comedian Dave Chappelle, whose most recent comedy special included comments deemed by some to be transphobic.

Terry Gilliam's Into the Woods cancelled by Old Vic after reports of staff unease


----------



## Steel Icarus (Nov 2, 2021)

Saw this today during some work-related LGBT+ training, made sense to me


----------



## 8ball (Nov 2, 2021)

Serene said:


> Allegedly Terry Gilliam, the Monty Python person, has been cancelled by staff at his new production at the Old Vic due to staff unease at some of his previous comments. Allegedly some of his staff were unhappy with previous controversial remarks made by the Actor. He recently defended the comedian Dave Chappelle, whose most recent comedy special included comments deemed by some to be transphobic.
> 
> Terry Gilliam's Into the Woods cancelled by Old Vic after reports of staff unease



Fucking hell, I'd love to be able to stop shit happening at work just cos I felt "uneasy".


----------



## Raheem (Nov 2, 2021)

8ball said:


> Fucking hell, I'd love to be able to stop shit happening at work just cos I felt "uneasy".


Assuming you're not the only one, you can (not that it's always going to be easy, or that success is a given).


----------



## 8ball (Nov 2, 2021)

Raheem said:


> Assuming you're not the only one, you can (not that it's always going to be easy, or that success is a given).



Been plenty of cases where I wasn’t the only one feeling uneasy but was the only one loudly saying it.  As far as I know no one has died as a result, which is something.

If I was working at a Theatre on a play I can’t see myself downing tools over someone’s prior comments unless they were an out and out fascist, though.

If there was something really bad in the production itself then things might be different.


----------



## spanglechick (Nov 2, 2021)

Serene said:


> Allegedly Terry Gilliam, the Monty Python person, has been cancelled by staff at his new production at the Old Vic due to staff unease at some of his previous comments. Allegedly some of his staff were unhappy with previous controversial remarks made by the Actor. He recently defended the comedian Dave Chappelle, whose most recent comedy special included comments deemed by some to be transphobic.
> 
> Terry Gilliam's Into the Woods cancelled by Old Vic after reports of staff unease


Tbf, the trans stuff is the least part of his problematic comments over the last few years.  The stuff about Me Too was deliberate, repeated and foul.  

Theatre has many problems of its own to work on, but one of its strengths is that it is often more political, less market-driven than the movie business.  Making high-budget stage magic is a huge privilege.  If you repeatedly say cunty things, don’t be surprised when that privilege is sometimes removed from you.  

It’s a shame, I’d have loved to see it.  But there’s no shortage of different creative people to give that privilege to.  Some of them aren’t even old rich white men whith revolting views.


----------



## spanglechick (Nov 2, 2021)

8ball said:


> Been plenty of cases where I wasn’t the only one feeling uneasy but was the only one loudly saying it.  As far as I know no one has died as a result, which is something.
> 
> If I was working at a Theatre on a play I can’t see myself downing tools over someone’s prior comments unless they were an out and out fascist, though.
> 
> If there was something really bad in the production itself then things might be different.


They weren’t working on it yet.  It was planned for the future.


----------



## Serene (Nov 2, 2021)

8ball said:


> If I was working at a Theatre on a play I can’t see myself downing tools over someone’s prior comments unless they were an out and out fascist, though.


It does say 

The reasons for the cancellation have not been made explicitly clear, and the theatre only posted a short announcement on its website last week.


----------



## 8ball (Nov 2, 2021)

spanglechick said:


> They weren’t working on it yet.  It was planned for the future.



Fair point.  I don’t know the content of the comments either tbf.


----------



## belboid (Nov 2, 2021)

When the director makes a shitload of comments that run in opposition to the theme of the play, it’s pretty damned reasonable to object to them.   How the hell it got this far is the really odd thing.


----------



## Serene (Nov 2, 2021)

Its been cancelled by the Old Vic, they wish the play well wherever it goes next.


----------



## Orang Utan (Nov 2, 2021)

They are probably still reeling from Spacey’s tenure there


----------



## 8ball (Nov 2, 2021)

Orang Utan said:


> They are probably still reeling from Spacey’s tenure there



Must admit a “reputation cleanup” motive occurred to me.


----------



## Raheem (Nov 2, 2021)

Orang Utan said:


> They are probably still reeling from Spacey’s tenure there


Or they brought in a procedure for complaining that the person in charge is a dick.


----------



## TERFhunter (Nov 4, 2021)

I've read most of this cursed thread and the mods need to put their house in order and kick out the fucking bigots.


----------



## Monkeygrinder's Organ (Nov 4, 2021)

...And definitely not new posters signing up to troll probably the most volatile thread on the boards.


----------



## Santino (Nov 4, 2021)

.


----------



## A380 (Nov 4, 2021)

TERFhunter said:


> I've read most of this cursed thread and the mods need to put their house in order and kick out the fucking bigots.


I don't comment on this thread as I don't feel I have the knowledge, experience or understanding to be able to make any positive contribution. I have however reported this obviously malicious new account and post.


----------



## belboid (Nov 4, 2021)

Excellent piece on why it is right, occasionally, for a union not to oppose a dismissal (not that Stock was a member of the union any more).  









						When is it right for a union to support dismissal?
					

The 'academic freedom' defence is a farce.




					www.rs21.org.uk


----------



## Knotted (Nov 4, 2021)

belboid said:


> Excellent piece on why it is right, occasionally, for a union not to oppose a dismissal (not that Stock was a member of the union any more).
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Do you know anything about RS21? I've never heard of them.


----------



## Fozzie Bear (Nov 4, 2021)

Knotted said:


> Do you know anything about RS21? I've never heard of them.


SWP spinoff

ETA - over the Comrade Delta stuff:








						Open statement: Resignation from the SWP
					

The signatories to this statement can no longer remain members of the Socialist Workers Party (SWP) following events at its annual conference on 13-15 December 2013.




					www.rs21.org.uk


----------



## bimble (Nov 4, 2021)

sometimes, its just too crazy. KS is accused there (in the linked highly recommended extremely long piece) of 'genocide apologism', i mean, srsly.


----------



## Shechemite (Nov 4, 2021)

Fozzie Bear said:


> SWP spinoff
> 
> ETA - over the Comrade Delta stuff:
> 
> ...



Strong vibes 








						Into the Freezone: Practicing Scientology Outside of the Church
					

They believe in L. Ron Hubbard's teachings and dianetics. They just don't believe in the Church itself.




					www.vice.com


----------



## teuchter (Nov 4, 2021)

bimble said:


> sometimes, its just too crazy. KS is accused there (in the linked highly recommended extremely long piece) of 'genocide apologism', i mean, srsly.


The same piece that was linked to on here a few pages back.


----------



## belboid (Nov 4, 2021)

bimble said:


> sometimes, its just too crazy. KS is accused there (in the linked highly recommended extremely long piece) of 'genocide apologism', i mean, srsly.


do you mean in the Grace Lavery piece? Thats the only one I can see makes any such reference.  But what else would you call a demand for the 'elimination of the practise of transgenderism'?


----------



## PursuedByBears (Nov 4, 2021)

belboid said:


> do you mean in the Grace Lavery piece? Thats the only one I can see makes any such reference.  But what else would you call a demand for the 'elimination of the practise of transgenderism'?


Probably not genocide tbh


----------



## belboid (Nov 4, 2021)

"The intentional act to destroy a people" - seems pretty damned similar to me.


----------



## bimble (Nov 4, 2021)

I can't do this today and shouldn't have said anything.
People who think its great that she's not working  at sussex uni anymore should celebrate the victory but hurry up cos according to that same piece the vice chancellor of the university needs to lose his job too. "I realize that Tickell’s _en route_ to a new position as VC of Birmingham University. He should lose _that _job too. "..


----------



## belboid (Nov 4, 2021)

bimble said:


> I can't do this today and shouldn't have said anything.
> People who think its great that she's not working  at sussex uni anymore should celebrate the victory but hurry up cos according to that same piece the vice chancellor of the university needs to lose his job too. "I realize that Tickell’s _en route_ to a new position as VC of Birmingham University. He should lose _that _job too. "..


fucking diddums.  Pity the poor bosses who make awful decisions.


----------



## bimble (Nov 4, 2021)

belboid said:


> fucking diddums.  Pity the poor bosses who make awful decisions.


what should he have done in your opinion? 
Agreed that her working there was a danger to the safety of students and sacked her?
Its a bit of a weird one this in my head cos 100 years ago i went to that same university, and my department was run by a bunch of short haired hardcore materialist feminists,  they are probably all gone now by natural causes but i don't think they'd be "on the right side of history" now.


----------



## belboid (Nov 4, 2021)

bimble said:


> what should he have done in your opinion?


held an inquiry into transphobia on campus, as the union asked for.  Support students.


----------



## belboid (Nov 4, 2021)

oops

BBC discovers one of the anti-trans bigots it quoted is....an anti-trans bigot with a history of sexual misconduct.  Well, what a surprise.









						BBC changes online article at centre of transphobia row
					

Woman quoted in piece later described trans women as ‘vile, weak and disgusting’




					www.theguardian.com


----------



## Athos (Nov 4, 2021)

belboid said:


> do you mean in the Grace Lavery piece? Thats the only one I can see makes any such reference.  But what else would you call a demand for the 'elimination of the practise of transgenderism'?



In principle, the *practice* could be eliminated without killing any *people*, by eliminaing gender (once a fairly uncontroversial aim amongst feminists).  Your position is like saying those who want to end the practice of animal farming want to murder all meat eaters.  This isn't to say I think that elimination is a particularly good aim, or that I don't think it's often wrapped up with some pretty unpleasant stuff*, but to call it genocide is ridiculous hyperbole.  (*And the stuff on Lily Cade's blog was vile bigotry, that deserves to unequivocally condemned.)


----------



## smokedout (Nov 4, 2021)

PursuedByBears said:


> Probably not genocide tbh



I don't think it's particularly useful, but if people were calling for the elimination of a particular religion, or the practice of homosexuality from society, it might focus a few minds about what that actually looks like (and you could do both of those, in theory, without killing anyone, not directly anyway).


----------



## teuchter (Nov 4, 2021)

belboid said:


> do you mean in the Grace Lavery piece? Thats the only one I can see makes any such reference.  But what else would you call a demand for the 'elimination of the practise of transgenderism'?


I guess an elimination of racism or sexism would count as genocide as well then.


----------



## smokedout (Nov 4, 2021)

belboid said:


> oops
> 
> BBC discovers one of the anti-trans bigots it quoted is....an anti-trans bigot with a history of sexual misconduct.  Well, what a surprise.
> 
> ...



By sexual misconduct they mean multiple offences which would be treated as rape in most jurisdictions.


----------



## Athos (Nov 4, 2021)

smokedout said:


> By sexual misconduct they mean multiple offences which would be treated as rape in most jurisdictions.


Not in this one - it requires a penis.


----------



## belboid (Nov 4, 2021)

smokedout said:


> I don't think it's particularly useful, but if people were calling for the elimination of a particular religion, or the practice of homosexuality from society, it might focus a few minds about what that actually looks like (and you could do both of those, in theory, without killing anyone, not directly anyway).


can you imagine the response of Jeremy Corbyn had said he wanted to end the practise of Judaism?  I doubt the usual apologists here would be defending his comments in the same way.


----------



## elbows (Nov 4, 2021)

belboid said:


> oops
> 
> BBC discovers one of the anti-trans bigots it quoted is....an anti-trans bigot with a history of sexual misconduct.  Well, what a surprise.
> 
> ...


And the sort of bigot who calls for violence and then resorts to a pathetic defence.



> Since the article’s publication Cade, who was quoted in the original story, published violently transphobic remarks on her website – which has been down since Wednesday – appearing to call for the “lynching” of high-profile trans women. In a statement to the Guardian, Cade said she had only attacked “personas”, not people, and said Lily Cade was also a persona.


----------



## bimble (Nov 4, 2021)

The analogy with religion is something i find really interesting but probably not in the right way.


----------



## Shechemite (Nov 4, 2021)

Always was going to be belboid to get something in about the Jooz here


----------



## elbows (Nov 4, 2021)

More awful detail on what Cade said here:



> Following her appearance in the BBC article, Cade’s blog, which had sat unused since 2019, was fired back into life.
> 
> In a flurry of new posts, five in as many days, Cade appeared to engage in extreme transphobia, with one saying: “If you left it up to me, I’d execute every last one of them [trans women] personally.”
> 
> The posts also claim without basis that transexual surgeons are experimenting on children’s bodies, that a paedophile cult is in power in the Western world, and that it is an “obvious truth that trans women are men with a mental illness”.





> One post specifically calls for famous trans women, including Caitlyn Jenner (below) and Lana and Lilly Wachowski, to be lynched.











						BBC 'scandal' after interviewee goes on to call for trans women to be 'executed'
					

THE BBC has found itself in the centre of a “major journalistic scandal” after a woman it platformed in a heavily criticised article went on…




					www.thenational.scot


----------



## smokedout (Nov 4, 2021)

bimble said:


> The analogy with religion is something i find really interesting but probably not in the right way.



I know where you're going.  But kids articulate that they are trans from infancy often, usually without any influence or knowledge of what that means.  If a child suddenly started following the practice of a religion they had never been exposed to that would be interesting.  But I'm not sure it's ever happened.


----------



## bimble (Nov 4, 2021)

smokedout said:


> I know where you're going.  But kids articulate that they are trans from infancy often, usually without any influence or knowledge of what that means.  If a child suddenly started following the practice of a religion they had never been exposed to that would be interesting.  But I'm not sure it's ever happened.


are you of the opinion, broadly, that people are born trans?


----------



## smokedout (Nov 4, 2021)

bimble said:


> are you of the opinion, broadly, that people are born trans?



I honestly don't know but that's certainly what it feels like.  Remember many of the previous generations of trans people, myself included, did everthing we possibly could to try and not be trans, usually with pretty devastating personal consequences.


----------



## elbows (Nov 4, 2021)

Broadly speaking I dont usually find the need to distinguish between things that were true from the moment someone was conceived, things that were true at the moment someone was born and things that became so during some stage of child development. Especially as far as our own sense of self goes since awareness of that surely emerges gradually during said developmental phases quite some time after birth.


----------



## bimble (Nov 4, 2021)

Yep. and i wouldn't go round asking that question of gay people, so its not a totally innocent question i get that. I do think, there is such a whole vast range of experiences (incl non binary people) that are getting grouped under this little word trans.


----------



## elbows (Nov 4, 2021)

Well language is rarely small even when the words are, and it has all sorts of cultural norms baked into it as part of its very function.


----------



## kabbes (Nov 4, 2021)

smokedout said:


> I know where you're going.  But kids articulate that they are trans from infancy often, usually without any influence or knowledge of what that means.  If a child suddenly started following the practice of a religion they had never been exposed to that would be interesting.  But I'm not sure it's ever happened.


Kids receive the information of what gender is and how it is performed pretty much before any other cultural knowledge at all. They are saturated with cultural depictions of gender from long before they can even speak. I really don’t think you can say that by the time a child is capable of articulation, it has been free from influence or knowledge of what doing gender involves.


----------



## smokedout (Nov 4, 2021)

kabbes said:


> Kids receive the information of what gender is and how it is performed pretty much before any other cultural knowledge at all. They are saturated with cultural depictions of gender from long before they can even speak. I really don’t think you can say that by the time a child is capable of articulation, it has been free from influence or knowledge of what doing gender involves.


Indeed they have,  They have been told they are one gender from the moment they were born.  And yet a very small number, say no actually, that's not what I am from as soon as they are able to.


----------



## hitmouse (Nov 4, 2021)

elbows said:


> More awful detail on what Cade said here:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Yes, if people are interested to see for themselves, then they can put these URLs into archive.is Don't know if I even want to provide a direct link to the archived versions, because it is incredibly hateful stuff. Obviously, Cade is not the only person to engage in unhelpful rhetoric about this issue, but on the other hand if you call yourself "terfhunter" or whatever then you probably won't get invited onto the BBC as a voice of reason or feminism or whatever.


----------



## elbows (Nov 4, 2021)

Its not 'unhelpful rhetoric' its incitement to murder and I sometimes wonder if one of the reasons these threads seem hideous and unbalanced is that we spend most of the time talking about people quibbling over details and dressing shit up with various justifications and allegedly reasonable questions and uncertainties, and not enough time looking at the most brutal of extremes and the level of deadly hate that can sometimes be seen lurking just below the surface. In that case it was not even below the surface and so I felt the need to mention it, but I dont have the mental strength to be trawling through such horrors on a routine basis.


----------



## hitmouse (Nov 4, 2021)

elbows said:


> Its not 'unhelpful rhetoric' its incitement to murder and I sometimes wonder if one of the reasons these threads seem hideous and unbalanced is that we spend most of the time talking about people quibbling over details and dressing shit up with various justifications and allegedly reasonable questions and uncertainties, and not enough time looking at the most brutal of extremes and the level of deadly hate that can sometimes be seen lurking just below the surface. In that case it was not even below the surface and so I felt the need to mention it, but I dont have the mental strength to be trawling through such horrors on a routine basis.


Oh yeah, I see what you mean, but at the same time I was thinking about the fact that people on the GC side will often bring up examples of some random social media account/sign at a protest/whatever that uses violent anti-terf rhetoric, so I kind of suspect that focusing on the most brutal extremes could very easily turn into an unproductive exchange of "oh yeah but have you seen what terfhunter420 posted once?" Although I suppose it's an open question as to whether that'd be any _more _unhelpful than whatever's been happening on this thread so far. So I suppose... dunno, I'm tired and not formulating this well, but there's like a test of significance as to whether stuff belongs in the conversation? And to be clear, I absolutely think the Cade stuff passes it, because we're not just talking about one very unwell individual posting incredibly violent fantasies, the question is what the fuck happened for the BBC to decide that this particular individual was someone whose voice they really needed to amplify at this moment?


----------



## elbows (Nov 4, 2021)

I suppose I'm suggesting we may need reminders of how high the stakes can be.

And that goes for both trans victims of violence and cis victims of violence. And probably a big part of why I lose my cool in these threads is when I see these things being pitted against eachother instead of being positioned on the same side. A dangerous and relatively transparent game. A disgrace in so many ways.

In some ways I think it is that simple, in other ways not so much. Getting bogged down is part of the trap, and I've stopped using some terms because I didnt want to end up adding to the very forces I'd like to undermine. I dont have all the answers, but it would be a lot easier to discuss some things with a sense of good faith coming from people with other positions if more people took the opportunity to condemn stuff that should be easy to condemn. Saying that may well lead to people saying that those comments were so obviously abhorrent that there is hardly a need for people to state where they stand on that, but since people still feeling the need to do so when it comes to all the other sorts of hideous deadly rhetoric and bigotry, I struggle not to end up taking the relative paucity of such things on these threads as a bad sign.


----------



## elbows (Nov 4, 2021)

I have similar feelings when we move away from the most extreme side of things too. One of the most depressing things to me in various threads over the years was the number of clear and obvious opportunities there were for people to demonstrate where the limits of their 'reasonable concerns' were, for example by liking certain extremely reasonable posts that demonstrated where the common ground and common cause was, and which didnt trip over the red lines some people may have when it came to particular details or questions of safety. Those opportunities were often utterly squandered, and that contributed to a sense of bad faith and of hideous polarisation.

There are exceptions. Sometimes the cycle of these threads involve an explosion where a bunch of people feel compelled to speak out and the momentum temporarily shifts. Sometimes, but certainly not always, this creates a moment where other people become keener to explicitly state their desire to defend certain rights and describe the various ways they hope trans people can live a fulfilling life in safety without fear. But those moments dont tend to last, we struggle to build upon them, and the same old patterns of 'debate' gradually resume.


----------



## smokedout (Nov 4, 2021)

hitmouse said:


> Yes, if people are interested to see for themselves, then they can put these URLs into archive.is Don't know if I even want to provide a direct link to the archived versions, because it is incredibly hateful stuff. Obviously, Cade is not the only person to engage in unhelpful rhetoric about this issue, but on the other hand if you call yourself "terfhunter" or whatever then you probably won't get invited onto the BBC as a voice of reason or feminism or whatever.


The 'survey' in the original BBC story formed part of a report in which the researcher quoted Janice Raymond's line that “All transsexuals rape women’s bodies by reducing the real female form to an artefact, appropriating this body for themselves”.  So they aren't actually that fussy at the beeb.


----------



## elbows (Nov 4, 2021)

hitmouse said:


> And to be clear, I absolutely think the Cade stuff passes it, because we're not just talking about one very unwell individual posting incredibly violent fantasies, the question is what the fuck happened for the BBC to decide that this particular individual was someone whose voice they really needed to amplify at this moment?


I was somewhat surprised that the BBC article and the backlash didnt come up here till now. I groaned when I saw the title of the story on the BBC site when it was first published, and I found it hard to bring myself to even read it fully. I figured I would probably feel compelled to do so once it came up here, but then it didnt.


----------



## smokedout (Nov 4, 2021)

To clarify that here's what Angela Wild who produced the report and survey said to the BBC:


Here's what Angela Wild says in the report under discussion



You might have hoped the journalist would have picked up on this, given we are told the story had been in the works for over a year and held to exceptional editorial standards.


----------



## elbows (Nov 4, 2021)

I wouldnt have that hope for the same reason I groaned when I saw the title of the BBC article. This stuff has been weaponised and its impossible to discuss the actual issues properly without quite some time being dedicated to the weaponisation and warning signs of such weapons being crudely deployed, and yet I hardly expected that to feature at all in the BBC article.

I still think media etc organisations that get in a big mess over this should spend more time thinking about the parallels to racism and what were deemed to be legitimate concerns worthy of an airing as opposed to bigoted tropes on that front. Studying the broader stance of the groups in question, and whether they put any effort into demonstrating that they are not bigots and that their motives arent sponsored by hate and ignorance, should be part of the basics. Plenty of those groups dont even pretend, they give themselves no real cover and yet are still taken at face value by far too many.


----------



## Raheem (Nov 4, 2021)

I honestly think the BBC thing was probably, in part, about trying deliberately to create an example of something that jived with general anti-woke sentiment, to show that they are not all about one-way traffic.


----------



## elbows (Nov 4, 2021)

Plus I might hope that sufficient comparisons to racism might also help avoid problems that can arise if delicate issues in that area are shied away from too much in the opposite direction. eg some abusers within minority groups that got away with terrible things for far too long for a complicated mix of reasons that included authorities utterly botching their duty of care because of local power dynamics, politics and sloppy, malformed fears of being seen as racist. These arent easy areas to tread into, but nobody is served well when we look the other way. So I'm not asking people to do that, but I am asking people to recognise weapons of hate when they see them so blatantly deployed.


----------



## smokedout (Nov 5, 2021)

Raheem said:


> I honestly think the BBC thing was probably, in part, about trying deliberately to create an example of something that jived with general anti-woke sentiment, to show that they are not all about one-way traffic.



I don't think it was that at all.  Transphobia has swept through a certain demographic in the UK like a virus, notably amongst those old enough to have been brought up in a culture saturated with transphobia and privileged enough to think trans women in women's toilets is the greatest threat facing humankind and preventing trans inclusion the most important political project of the day.  That demographic runs the media in the UK.  For those on the right transphobia is business as usual, or in some cases a way to exploit a conflict within feminism with the ultimate aim of causing as much damage to both sides as possible.  For those on the left however,trans people represent a threat to their identity of themselves as lefty, progressive people - they are furious at being called transphobes even though that's what they are because it is in conflict with their political identity and how they see themselves.  So they have to jump through all kinds of intellectual hoops to justify how they feel (when what is really causing it is simple latent prejudice).

And this is compounded by the fact within the media, these lefty progressive people think they run the left and always have.  And they're all mates and hang out together and marry each other and went to the same schools and universities - so when they see one of their own under attack they side with them instinctively.  For all  their claims of being cancelled people like Suzanne Moore, Julie Burchill, Janice Turner etc have huge amounts of influence within the media class, and what we are seeing at the BBC, Guardian and other notable left or liberal organisations is simply the media class closing ranks to protect their own - not just from attacks from trans activists, but from the upcoming generation of left wing media wankers who think very differently about this issue and are after their jobs.


----------



## Knotted (Nov 5, 2021)

Gender critical feminism is a way of laundering transphobia.


----------



## spanglechick (Nov 6, 2021)

Knotted said:


> Gender critical feminism is a way of laundering transphobia.


It’s more than that.  

Maybe you might have to be socialised as a woman for a long time to properly understand the righteous white hot rage  that grows in many of us (especially in recent years) towards male violence and male entitlement.  

I have that rage, but I don’t see trans women as men. That isn’t my starting point.  

It’s possible to not have that rage, see trans women as men, and for your trans-exclusion to be detached and philosophical.  Or even to be de facto “pro trans”. I’d suggest many of the cis male posters here fit Ito this category.  And some of the cis female ones.  

But when you combine that belief that deep down, trans women are men, with the justified rage against male violence and entitlement, you get a position that is fiercely driven. I think left and right in that context are entirely fucking irrelevant. 

I’ve had to do a lot of intellectual and soul-searching work to understand why a minority of my intelligent, compassionate, left wing feminist friends were holding a position so far from my own.  It has taken me years, and this is where I’ve got to.   

I still disagree with those women. I still want to be a voice for what ime seems like an often overlooked majority of cis women who do include trans women into a broader category of womanhood… but I’m certain that in a lot of cases, the views opposing are not about latent social conservatism - they are about the trauma of a lifetime of structural violence and patriarchal oppression.


----------



## HoratioCuthbert (Nov 6, 2021)

smokedout said:


> I honestly don't know but that's certainly what it feels like.  Remember many of the previous generations of trans people, myself included, did everthing we possibly could to try and not be trans, usually with pretty devastating personal consequences.


This needs repeating often in this thread. This is not new territory.


----------



## mauvais (Nov 6, 2021)

I could probably shed some light on the BBC's culture but I'm not sure I could do so more candidly without opening myself up to problems - not that I understand it much of it anyway.

Firstly, try to remember that the BBC consists of a lot more than its news editorial teams, and the behaviours manifested in its news editorial do not necessarily reflect the rest of the organisation, including presence and diversity of different voices.

It is no secret that it finds it institutionally very difficult to apologise or change direction until forced to do so, and accordingly, has suffered some high profile, entirely predictable, drawn-out defeats on various subjects in recent years. It is beginning to suffer a fresh one on content raised here and the Cade element probably won't be the end of it.

Some of the problems it faces are classic 'oil tanker' institutional ones, such how to reconcile the tradition of bland corporate twiddling with increasingly serious errors in an increasingly unforgiving landscape. In this case it has a problem with reconciling its corporate ideas about what it _thinks _the problem is, lack of impartiality and not serving all audiences, with what the actual problem is: a lack of human empathy.

There has been considerable internal disquiet recently over that article and other episodes such as the Nolan podcast. Very senior leadership has _begun _to listen, in one particular new appointee's case very positively, but it remains to be seen as to whether they are willing to bring about change rather than offer platitudes. I personally have the opportunity to raise a grievance with one of them. I have no idea how that will go.


----------



## 8ball (Nov 6, 2021)

mauvais said:


> I could probably shed some light on the BBC's culture but I'm not sure I could do so more candidly without opening myself up to problems - not that I understand it much of it anyway.
> 
> Firstly, try to remember that the BBC consists of a lot more than its news editorial teams, and the behaviours manifested in its news editorial do not necessarily reflect the rest of the organisation, including presence and diversity of different voices.
> 
> ...



Being closer to the culture, what were your thoughts on that Nolan podcast? 

Do you think that was a case of “let’s put this on and say we are taking a balanced and impartial view, when taken in aggregate”?


----------



## mauvais (Nov 6, 2021)

8ball said:


> Being closer to the culture, what were your thoughts on that Nolan podcast?
> 
> Do you think that was a case of “let’s put this on and say we are taking a balanced and impartial view, when taken in aggregate”?


I haven't listened to it, I have merely heard about it. From what I have heard about it, it sounds like much the same root causes as the "lesbians" article.

I'm still trying to work out what those root causes really are, in the sense that I'm not totally baffled by it, but trying to decide where it sits between clumsy naivety and something more directed.


----------



## 8ball (Nov 6, 2021)

mauvais said:


> I haven't listened to it, I have merely heard about it. From what I have heard about it, it sounds like much the same root causes as the "lesbians" article.
> 
> I'm still trying to work out what those root causes really are, in the sense that I'm not totally baffled by it, but trying to decide where it sits between clumsy naivety and something more directed.



Thanks.  I suspect a good bit of the former, but cannot discount the latter. I just read the “lesbians” article - obv can’t see what was said before it was amended.  It’s quite different in subject to those bits of the Nolan thing that I listened to.


----------



## mauvais (Nov 6, 2021)

8ball said:


> Thanks.  I suspect a good bit of the former, but cannot discount the latter. I just read the “lesbians” article - obv can’t see what was said before it was amended.  It’s quite different in subject to those bits of the Nolan thing that I listened to.


Ultimately I think you ought to ask yourself the same question for each: is doing [whatever this is] going to pass a basic check for empathy?

A slightly more specific litmus test for this seems to me to be: would I ever post, "ooh look at this - [whatever it is]" on my social media or work comms? Where people affected by this exist.

So, would I post:

"ooh look at this - a podcast investigating whether the BBC makes too many concessions to Stonewall"
or
"ooh look at this - lesbians being pressured into sex by trans people"
?

I'll let you guess the answers to that yourself.


----------



## 8ball (Nov 6, 2021)

mauvais said:


> Ultimately I think you ought to ask yourself the same question for each: is doing [whatever this is] going to pass a basic check for empathy?
> 
> A slightly more specific litmus test for this seems to me to be: would I ever post, "ooh look at this - [whatever it is]" on my social media or work comms? Where people affected by this exist.
> 
> ...



Not sure I understand this post.  Seems very odd to conflate an empathy check with what I’m likely to mention on social media, still less work comms.


----------



## mauvais (Nov 6, 2021)

8ball said:


> Not sure I understand this post.  Seems very odd to conflate an empathy check with what I’m likely to mention on social media.


Some things you can freely share or draw attention to because there is little or no question of doing harm.

Right this instant you could look at the top story on BBC News and post, "ooh look - John Major thinks the government handling of the Paterson case is shameful - article" , and this wouldn't raise any eyebrows.

But there are certain things out there that, if you chose to draw attention to them, people would look at you and think: WTF is your agenda? Why are you bringing this up? Are you trying to make this a comment on of all [some group]?

Because you would have failed that basic check.

We all make these decisions all the time.


----------



## 8ball (Nov 6, 2021)

mauvais said:


> Some things you can freely share or draw attention to because there is little or no question of doing harm.
> 
> Right this instant you could look at the top story on BBC News and post, "ooh look - John Major thinks the government handling of the Paterson case is shameful - article" , and this wouldn't raise any eyebrows.
> 
> ...



I think you have confused an empathy check with a “will this make me look good?” check.


----------



## mauvais (Nov 6, 2021)

8ball said:


> I think you have confused an empathy check with a “will this make me look good?” check.


Only if you're self-obsessed.


----------



## 8ball (Nov 6, 2021)

mauvais said:


> Only if you're self-obsessed.



I’m not sure whether this is the most naïve thing I’ve ever read.


----------



## mauvais (Nov 6, 2021)

8ball said:


> I’m not sure whether this is the most naïve thing I’ve ever read.


We all filter things on an empathetic basis to avoid upsetting people, or harming the vulnerable, and not just out of self-interest. Are you telling me you don't?


----------



## 8ball (Nov 6, 2021)

mauvais said:


> We all filter things to avoid upsetting people, and not just out of self-interest. Are you telling me you don't?



No.


----------



## mauvais (Nov 6, 2021)

8ball said:


> No.


Right. So, going back to my point: would you not expect a public service media organisation to be capable of, and do, the same?

I'm being a bit coy about whether I think it does or not, for my own reasons, and I'm sure that doesn't help the clarity of this discussion.


----------



## 8ball (Nov 6, 2021)

mauvais said:


> Right. So, going back to my point: would you not expect a public service media organisation to be capable of, and do, the same?



No, I wouldn’t necessarily expect a public service media organisations to censor itself because someone might be upset by it, or accuse them of having an agenda.

I don’t think that impulse worked out well in Rotherham.


----------



## mauvais (Nov 6, 2021)

8ball said:


> No, I wouldn’t necessarily expect a public service media organisations to censor itself because someone might be upset by it, or accuse them of having an agenda.
> 
> I don’t think that impulse worked out well in Rotherham.


Now this is a fair point. But at this juncture you're presented with new questions like: is this issue serious enough to violate this principle? Is there a clear justification of the public good in pursuing this?

That's another couple of questions you can apply as tests of the aforementioned publications.


----------



## 8ball (Nov 6, 2021)

mauvais said:


> Now this is a fair point. But at this juncture you're presented with new questions like: is this issue serious enough to violate this principle? Is there a clear justification of the public good in pursuing this?
> 
> That's another couple of questions you can apply as tests of the aforementioned publications.





These are questions for the publishing body to ask itself.  Most people aren’t going to have any idea of something like, for example, the real-world prevalence of lesbians being pressured into sex by trans women.


----------



## smokedout (Nov 6, 2021)

mauvais said:


> I could probably shed some light on the BBC's culture but I'm not sure I could do so more candidly without opening myself up to problems - not that I understand it much of it anyway.
> 
> Firstly, try to remember that the BBC consists of a lot more than its news editorial teams, and the behaviours manifested in its news editorial do not necessarily reflect the rest of the organisation, including presence and diversity of different voices.
> 
> ...



It's about much more than Cade.  There's a summary of why trans people are pissed off about it here if it's any use: The BBC has failed trans people: Our demands following the #BBCCoverUp


----------



## 8ball (Nov 6, 2021)

smokedout said:


> It's about much more than Cade.  There's a summary of why trans people are pissed off about it here if it's any use: The BBC has failed trans people: Our demands following the #BBCCoverUp



Since the original article has been amended (and I didn’t see it) - does much of this relate to the current state of the article?


----------



## smokedout (Nov 6, 2021)

8ball said:


> Since the original article has been amended (and I didn’t see it) - does much of this relate to the current state of the article?



You could always read it and see.  But yes, it relates to the inclusion of self selecting survey carried out by a group which believe trans people are rapists simply by existing, it lies that no trans person would talk to them and points out they were made aware of Cade's sexual offending in advance of publication, it shows the BBC perpetuated a transphobic hoax and asks why the only country this piece was translated for was Brasil where 175 trans women were murdered last year.


----------



## mauvais (Nov 6, 2021)

smokedout said:


> It's about much more than Cade.  There's a summary of why trans people are pissed off about it here if it's any use: The BBC has failed trans people: Our demands following the #BBCCoverUp


Indeed - I mention Cade just because it's the bit they had to retract/revise after getting really burned by the facts.


----------



## smokedout (Nov 6, 2021)

I think the reference to Brasil is particularly important, because even if you've drunk the gender critical kood aid and convinced yourself that trans people are 'the safest demographic', they aren't in Brasil, or Saudi Arabia, or many other parts of the world and this stuff has global reach.  It's not just the narky UKIP bigot next door who is emboldened by this kind of propaganda but regimes and movements who share the end goal of the elimination of transgenderism but are happy to get there by much more direct and bloody means.


----------



## 8ball (Nov 6, 2021)

smokedout said:


> You could always read it and see.  But yes, it relates to the inclusion of self selecting survey carried out by a group which believe trans people are rapists simply by existing, it lies that no trans person would talk to them and points out they were made aware of Cade's sexual offending in advance of publication, it shows the BBC perpetuated a transphobic hoax and asks why the only country this piece was translated for was Brasil where 175 trans women were murdered last year.



Ok, can take a look later.  I would say, though, that this looks like a case of very poor research, a lack of prior understanding (especially in terms of the way some groups present an outwardly moderate appearance as a front), and a general failure of journalistic standards, as opposed to failing an “empathy check”, or not taking account of potential offense caused, though in the current environment I’d expect them to be especially careful about potential harm, and it seems in this case they haven’t.


----------



## mauvais (Nov 6, 2021)

I haven't got the energy to argue the toss all day but I stand by my point. It would be better for most people if the public service broadcaster had, amongst its primary concerns alongside impartiality and the like, generating empathy and being kind. When you look at that article and ask yourself these questions - is this kind? is this empathetic/sympathetic to people where it can be? and if not, is it necessary? - then you might be find yourself in a more informed position as to the consequences of its publication, and whether it's worth it. In this case at least, you as a bystander are capable of making those assessments.

When applied to something that is focused on a vulnerable minority group, largely based on social media commentary, and by its own admission doesn't quantify the situation it describes, I think it is fraught with difficulty at the very least. Not to mention other qualities of the thing.

The problem is not all about the article detail or journalistic standards. The BBC would like it to be, because this would fit into defence of individual facts and the current C-level impartiality focus. It's about what it is holistically doing and whether it is good, which is something far more challenging.


----------



## HoratioCuthbert (Nov 6, 2021)

I dunno if referencing the bekind  hashtag is such a great idea, because to be quite honest every single time that I've encountered it it is usually  some pathetic sap chucking at me because they  don't like what I said about a person in a position of power, often massive power.


----------



## 8ball (Nov 6, 2021)

HoratioCuthbert said:


> I dunno if referencing the bekind  hashtag is such a great idea, because to be quite honest every single time that I've encountered it it is usually  some pathetic sap chucking at me because they  don't like what I said about a person in a position of power, often massive power.



Though tbf a “don’t be a dick” rule among journalists wouldn’t be all bad.


----------



## HoratioCuthbert (Nov 6, 2021)

8ball said:


> Though tbf a “don’t be a dick” rule among journalists wouldn’t be all bad.


Are you saying journalists are dicks? WHAT HAPPENED TO THE BEKIND HASHTAG



Yep, genuine conversation happening in some awful corner of fb right now.


----------



## Magnus McGinty (Nov 7, 2021)

spanglechick said:


> It’s more than that.
> 
> Maybe you might have to be socialised as a woman for a long time to properly understand the righteous white hot rage  that grows in many of us (especially in recent years) towards male violence and male entitlement.
> 
> ...



I think this is a very good analytical breakdown of the various voices. I fall into the ‘philosophical cis male’ camp which is why I’m no longer engaging (except for this post). I don’t have a dog in the fight.


----------



## Edie (Nov 7, 2021)

Magnus McGinty said:


> I think this is a very good analytical breakdown of the various voices. I fall into the ‘philosophical cis male’ camp which is why I’m no longer engaging (except for this post). I don’t have a dog in the fight.


It’s an excellent post. It pretty much sums up my view. I do think trans exists, I think trans people are having a human experience of being the wrong gender, and they deserve respect and protection. Best of luck to you smokedout if you do decide to go for a transition (if you’ve not already), and to iona 

And I don’t have anything further to say on the subject to be honest


----------



## iona (Nov 7, 2021)

Edie said:


> and to @iona


Sorry not been following the thread, was that a general best of luck or in reference to something further back that I missed?


----------



## Edie (Nov 7, 2021)

iona said:


> Sorry not been following the thread, was that a general best of luck or in reference to something further back that I missed?


Just a general atb x


----------



## Magnus McGinty (Nov 7, 2021)

Edie said:


> It’s an excellent post.



And I also wanted to highlight it as there’s a view that trans-inclusive feminists are being ignored. So for that reason but it’s difficult to disagree with.


----------



## Knotted (Nov 8, 2021)

spanglechick said:


> It’s more than that.
> 
> Maybe you might have to be socialised as a woman for a long time to properly understand the righteous white hot rage  that grows in many of us (especially in recent years) towards male violence and male entitlement.
> 
> ...



I think there are definitely what I think of old school TERFs out there. ie. literal trans (women) exclusionary radical feminists who perhaps at the same time would be willing to fight for the sex based rights of trans men but who are very definitely pissed off feminists who also take a sceptical position on the trans question. I think what you've written is a good summary of the state of affairs on this thread and a good summary of that old school TERF position. However I don't think that's quite the place the bulk of gender critical feminists are at. I also think that the two voices on this thread who are articulating the mainstream GC viewpoint on this thread are actually both male.

Regarding this current mainstream GC view (among women), my sense is that there may be rage at the general state of affairs that women live with but the overriding immediate concern is _fear_ that this trans agenda is advancing. Whatever its origins I think it is now first and foremost a single issue backlash against the Gender Recognition Act. The feminism is still there, but it's now the small print. I think the main issues are

1) Protect women's spaces from transwomen
2) Protect children from the encroaching trans ideology
3) A quite abstruse (IMO) concern about the erosion of biological concepts

My sense is that it's 2) that is actually the most powerful driver. If you look at what JK Rowling wrote in that essay, she thinks that she may have been encouraged to transition because of her childhood trauma if she were a child now. There's a recent interview between Kathleen Stock and Julie Bindel on youtube where they opine that parents are encouraging gay children to transition in order to avoid the stigma of being gay. They think that trans women are a physical threat, but they also think the trans agenda is out of control and brainwashing the schools, the doctors and of course the kids. The former threat is a bit obscure simply because there are so few trans women, but the latter is vague, amorphous and affecting everyone all the time. Most of the rhetoric is about TRA's not about trans women and under this view trans men are just as much an ideological threat as trans women (unless they jump through all sorts of ideological hoops).

If you look at 1), 2) and 3) above, the message conservative men receive from them is

1) The trans agenda is harming women - protect women!
2) The trans agenda is after your children - protect children!
3) Enshrine the differences between men and women like in the bible or in whatever cod evolutionary psychology theory they're into.

Ironically enough, this message actually reaffirms male gender roles rather than challenging them. And because the GC movement is single issue it's happy for these men (and similarly minded women) to misread the message because they want to create as broad a movement as possible. The goal is not to advance feminist ideas, the goal is to defeat the trans rights activists and reverse the GRA.


----------



## teuchter (Nov 8, 2021)

I don't think (3) is really "abstruse".

There are those who have spent years or decades fighting for people to be free of the expectations and restrictions associated with gender stereotypes. They want people to be able to grow up and choose to do the things that they want to do rather than things that are expectations of them on the basis of whether they are male or female. 

At the same time, they have fought for it to be recognised that there are certain things that _are_ unavoidably determined by whether you are "biologically" male or female. These are things that lead to various inequalities, and most of those inequalities are to the advantage of men.

I really don't see why it's hard to understand why anyone coming from this kind of background will have trouble with what seems to be a confusing redefinition of what sex and gender are, or what those words should be taken to mean. Whether in common parlance or legislation. And I don't see why they should be by default labelled as "transphobic". They may be fearful (rightly or wrongly) of the consequences of various positions but there is no reason to assume they are "fearful" of trans people in a way that is comparable with, say homophobia. Many of these people have spent their life being much more accepting of anyone who wants to deviate from gender "norms" than mainstream society and indeed championing associated causes. They are not people who are frightened of, or disgusted by, anyone who wants to live any aspect of their life in a way that adopts things traditionally associated with those born in the other biological sex. That's what the word "transphobia" implies to me, and that's not what's going on at all.

It's not entirely insignificant that Kathleen Stock is/was based in Brighton, somewhere with a long and well known history of being friendly to people who don't want to be constrained in their behaviour and life by the biological sex they were born with. I doubt I'm the only one reading this thread who knows, directly or indirectly, people who are or were or have been part of that Brighton scene, people who it just seems a nonsense to describe as "transphobic" and yet who will identify largely or partly with what (for now) seems to be labelled as "gender critical". I don't see why they should be held responsible for the fact that "conservative men" might reinterpret and reappropriate some of what is being talked about. I doubt I'm the only one who will know and understand why those people are angry at the way they are being labelled, and why some of them don't currently feel that they can even discuss things publicly.

I though spanglechick's post further up was a good one by the way, but I think that what I try and clumsily describe above is also an important part of things. And yes I am just another man and another often confused bystander to this whole thing. As a bystander, someone who listens to quite a few conversations in real life with woman of my generation and also my parents' generation as they try to navigate around it all. As well as reading the threads on here.


----------



## smokedout (Nov 8, 2021)

teuchter said:


> Many of these people have spent their life being much more accepting of anyone who wants to deviate from gender "norms" than mainstream society and indeed championing associated causes. They are not people who are frightened of, or disgusted by, anyone who wants to live any aspect of their life in a way that adopts things traditionally associated with those born in the other biological sex. That's what the word "transphobia" implies to me, and that's not what's going on at all.


Are you sure?  On this lefty tolerant message board not one person objected to the would you fuck a tranny threads just over a decade ago.  Watch any edgy sitcom popular with Gen x'rs from the 90s and later and you'll probably hit a transphobic joke in the first 10 minutes.  The male gay scene in particular was very hostile to trans women, somewhat ironically in retrospect because a lot of gay men didn't consider trans women to be men - in fact one of the reasons the Black Cap in Camden was so popular is that it was the only gay bar in London that actively welcomed trans people.

I was fucking there.  I've been around lefty people who championed those causes you speak of for most of my life.  There were very few people championing trans people, or gender nonconforming people for that matter.  What there were was lots of snide comments, people referred to as 'it', hilarious jokes and mutterings about why can't they just learn to accept their bodies on the very rare occassion the subject came up.  Meanwhile the likes of Julie Bindel and Germaine Greer were regularly spreading anti-trans propaganda in the left wing press.  Stonewall back then didn't want anything to do with us either.  A lot of people on the left were transphobic as fuck as it happens, and there were few who challenged them.  There's a reason it took me decades to come out despite being surrounded by all these wonderful trans friendly people you speak of.


----------



## smokedout (Nov 8, 2021)

Having said that, and whilst I do think latent transphoba is behind a lot of the gender critical movement, especially the men, I think what spanglechick said is pretty on the ball.  There are people on boths sides who have often been deeply traumatised by the behaviour of cis men and that's one of the reasons this conversation can be so fraught.


----------



## teuchter (Nov 8, 2021)

I'm not talking about urban75 posters from ten years ago nor people who write sitcoms. I'm talking about people i know in real life.


----------



## smokedout (Nov 8, 2021)

teuchter said:


> I'm not talking about urban75 posters from ten years ago nor people who write sitcoms. I'm talking about people i know in real life.



So am I.  Perhaps you have a different perspective.  One that isn't much use.


----------



## smokedout (Nov 8, 2021)

A lot of people seem to be rewriting the past and claiming to have been hugely supportive trans allies whilst doing nothing and not knowing any trans people - who remember all too well what things were like back then, on the left as well as the right.

And funnily enough the people back then who genuinely were trans allies, as in actively supportive, knew trans people and were comfortable with trans people, still are.


----------



## Knotted (Nov 9, 2021)

smokedout said:


> Having said that, and whilst I do think latent transphoba is behind a lot of the gender critical movement, especially the men, I think what spanglechick said is pretty on the ball.  There are people on boths sides who have often been deeply traumatised by the behaviour of cis men and that's one of the reasons this conversation can be so fraught.



OK I see where spanglechick was coming from now. Yes fair enough.


----------



## Athos (Nov 9, 2021)

smokedout said:


> There are people on boths sides who have often been deeply traumatised by the behaviour of cis men and that's one of the reasons this conversation can be so fraught.


I agree that this is at the heart of it. But wonder whether some women conceptualise those who've caused them trauma as males, rather than cis men.  That focus on biology is understandable if that was the medium through which that trauma occurred e.g. through the use of penis and/or directed at a vagina, or differences in stature and strength.  (And is perhaps the reason women haven't typically sought a common cause with, say, cis men who have been the victims of other cis men.)  It'll be hard for statistics about the lack of any significant risk posed by trans women to dissuade people from that visceral position - a healthy mistrust of males - which is ingrained in many as a survival mechanism.  But I think it'll come as more and more people get to know ordinary trans people (despite the counterproductive activity of a tiny minority of extremists at either end of the spectrum).


----------



## teuchter (Nov 9, 2021)

smokedout said:


> A lot of people seem to be rewriting the past and claiming to have been hugely supportive trans allies


If that's aimed at what I have written - that is not what I am claiming, either for myself or broadly for the "people I know" who might be now described as "gender critical" to some extent.

Those people won't ever have satisfied your definition of "hugely supportive trans allies" because they disagree with many trans activists on exactly how far trans rights should extend. That fact might be enough for you to call them "transphobic" but I do not think that is an appropriate term for the positions they take, for the reasons I tried to explain.


----------



## smokedout (Nov 9, 2021)

teuchter said:


> If that's aimed at what I have written - that is not what I am claiming, either for myself or broadly for the "people I know" who might be now described as "gender critical" to some extent.
> 
> Those people won't ever have satisfied your definition of "hugely supportive trans allies" because they disagree with many trans activists on exactly how far trans rights should extend. That fact might be enough for you to call them "transphobic" but I do not think that is an appropriate term for the positions they take, for the reasons I tried to explain.



So these people who "have spent their life being much more accepting of anyone who wants to deviate from gender "norms" than mainstream society and indeed championing associated causes." were opposed to trans rights and are still opposed to trans rights but call themselves gender critical.  So what.

The Gender Recognition Act became law in 2004, the first legislation protecting trans people's rights to use spaces inline with their gender came in 1979, was strengthened in 1999 and formalised fully in the 2010 Equality Act.  It seems your newly gender critical friends are somewhat behind mainstream society, as are you.  I imagine most people for example would find you comparing calling for the elimination of trangenderism to calling for eliminating racism to be pretty abhorrent, and deeply transphobic.  Eliminationist in fact.  And yet it flits off your tongue without a thought.


----------



## smokedout (Nov 9, 2021)

Knotted said:


> OK I see where spanglechick was coming from now. Yes fair enough.



There are lots of other factors at play including the ones you mention, as well as good old fashioned generational panic and resistance to change, conspiratorial concerns about medicalisation and big pharma, general anti-wokeness, ingrained and perhaps unacknowledged traditional views about gender and more legitimate debates (on the left and within feminism at least) such as concerns about the rise of identity politics and conflicts over whether the upcoming generation are attacking or strengthening the gender binary - support for trans people, along with sex workers - really represents a very big schism in feminist thought. Within radical lesbian feminism in the UK for example in many ways this is a replay of the lesbian sex wars of the 1980s, which was less visible but equally vicious and involved many of the same individuals.

On top of this has come a huge amount of opportunism from the right, who see the gender critical movement both as a way of pursuing reactionary goals, but also something which is useful to divide feminism and drum up support for the culture wars.  This had led to groups like LGB Alliance, who are in reality a handful of slightly odd cranks angry that the LGB scene isn't like it was in the 80s and 90s, becoming far more influential than they deserve.  Transgender Trend are run by a former cult member and sculpter who now presents herself in the right wing press as the leading global expert on trans children, she's nothing of the sort, she's a crank, but has gained prominence because she's useful to Murdoch, The Mail, The Spectator and the rest of them in stoking a moral panic which they are currently pushing very heavily (and they will drop them like hot stones when they think it's run out of steam and decide to switch to targetting a different minority).


----------



## belboid (Nov 9, 2021)

smokedout said:


> The Gender Recognition Act became law in 2004, the first legislation protecting trans people's rights to use spaces inline with their gender came in 1979, was strengthened in 1999 and formalised fully in the 2010 Equality Act.


Prior to 1970 people could self-identify, access affirmative medical care and correct their birth certificates without issue. Michael - née Laura - Dillon inherited a baronetcy (as a male) in 1958.









						Q&A with Zoë Playdon
					

Zo ë Playdon  is the author of the new book The Hidden Case of Ewan Forbes and the Unwritten History of the Trans Expe...




					deborahkalbbooks.blogspot.com


----------



## teuchter (Nov 9, 2021)

smokedout said:


> So these people who "have spent their life being much more accepting of anyone who wants to deviate from gender "norms" than mainstream society and indeed championing associated causes." were opposed to trans rights and are still opposed to trans rights but call themselves gender critical.  So what.



They disagree with (presumably) you and others about what exactly those rights should be. Maybe some of them disagree with some legislation too. Maybe some of them don't. That is not the same as being "opposed to trans rights". But you will happily accuse them of being "opposed to trans rights" with the implication that they are opposed to all or most rights afforded to trans people, just you will happily accuse them of transphobia. That's your approach, that's up to you, but that's the kind of approach that just ramps up anger and misunderstanding.



smokedout said:


> I imagine most people for example would find you comparing calling for the elimination of trangenderism to calling for eliminating racism to be pretty abhorrent, and deeply transphobic.  Eliminationist in fact.  And yet it flits off your tongue without a thought.



Here you go again. Now you're telling me I'm deeply transphobic, because of a comment I made that was related to a discussion of whether "eliminating transgenderism" amounted to "genocide". The call to eliminate transgenderism is in a particular document where a judgement has to be made about what exactly that document means by "transgenderism". My opinion is that what the document calls for does not equate to the commonly understood meaning of genocide. Therefore, my opinion is that it's not fair to call someone who was a signatory to that document a "genocide apologist". That's what the discussion was about - the ramping-up and misuse of language to make opposing viewpoints sound as extreme and unpleasant as possible. For you, me expressing that opinion about the use of language is enough for you to decide that I am deeply transphobic. OK then.


----------



## elbows (Nov 9, 2021)

teuchter said:


> They disagree with (presumably) you and others about what exactly those rights should be. Maybe some of them disagree with some legislation too. Maybe some of them don't. That is not the same as being "opposed to trans rights". But you will happily accuse them of being "opposed to trans rights" with the implication that they are opposed to all or most rights afforded to trans people, just you will happily accuse them of transphobia. That's your approach, that's up to you, but that's the kind of approach that just ramps up anger and misunderstanding.


Do you think its fair enough to question people as to the detail of the rights they support and oppose? Once people come out in loud opposition to something I think its quite legitimate to ask them what rights they do believe in, and to read much into any silence that may result. I certainly wont be forgetting in a hurry that plenty of vocal critics of the proposed changes to the GRA didnt seem to understand what rights were already enshrined in law, and that they fell suspiciously silent when I repeatedly asked them whether they supported the existing rights trans people have in UK law.


----------



## smokedout (Nov 9, 2021)

teuchter said:


> They disagree with (presumably) you and others about what exactly those rights should be. Maybe some of them disagree with some legislation too. Maybe some of them don't. That is not the same as being "opposed to trans rights". But you will happily accuse them of being "opposed to trans rights" with the implication that they are opposed to all or most rights afforded to trans people, just you will happily accuse them of transphobia. That's your approach, that's up to you, but that's the kind of approach that just ramps up anger and misunderstanding.



Disagreeing with legislation which provides for trans rights is the same thing as being opposed to trans rights.  Trans people in most circumstances have the right to use spaces inline with their gender and a right to change their legal sex. If you oppose that you oppose trans rights such as they are in the UK, European and international human right's laws.



> Therefore, my opinion is that it's not fair to call someone who was a signatory to that document a "genocide apologist". That's what the discussion was about - the ramping-up and misuse of language to make opposing viewpoints sound as extreme and unpleasant as possible. For you, me expressing that opinion about the use of language is enough for you to decide that I am deeply transphobic. OK then.


Opposing the use of the term genocide is very different, I said myself I didn't think it was helpful.  You compared calling for the elimination of transgenderism - which the authors of that document are quite frank about meaning the complete removal of any recognition of trans people in law, a worldwide ban on aspects of trans research and trans healthcare and the removal of social practices which support trans people - to calling for the elimination of racism.  Would you have compared someone calling for the elimination of homosexuality to someone calling for the elimination of racism?  Or the elimination of Islam?  It was a deeply unpleasant thing to say and shows that behind the pomposity and pious liberalism you're a pretty nasty piece of work who has brought nothing to the table in this debate..


----------



## teuchter (Nov 9, 2021)

elbows said:


> Do you think its fair enough to question people as to the detail of the rights they support and oppose? Once people come out in loud opposition to something I think its quite legitimate to ask them what rights they do believe in, and to read much into any silence that may result. I certainly wont be forgetting in a hurry that plenty of vocal critics of the proposed changes to the GRA didnt seem to understand what rights were already enshrined in law, and that they fell suspiciously silent when I repeatedly asked them whether they supported the existing rights trans people have in UK law.



For sure it's fair enough to question people on the detail of what they do or don't support. That questioning might reveal some ignorance or half baked thoughts. In some cases, perhaps it would reveal some attitudes that I would agree are transphobic. Questioning people can be productive where just accusing them of transphobia, as soon as you think they don't agree with you, isn't.


----------



## 8ball (Nov 9, 2021)

belboid said:


> Prior to 1970 people could self-identify, access affirmative medical care and correct their birth certificates without issue. Michael - née Laura - Dillon inherited a baronetcy (as a male) in 1958.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I thought Michael Dillon was listed as an heir, his older brother actually holding the baronetcy, but that even this led to a whole load of trouble.

Edit: Have found elsewhere that a few years after this, his brother died and he was set to inherit the baronetcy, which was fiercely contested by his cousin.

Anyhoo - fascinating stories in that link. Tempted to buy the book.


----------



## elbows (Nov 9, 2021)

I reject the idea that alling out transphobia cannot be productive, especially once the silence on certain details has already spoken volumes and given some people are so fucking slippery.


----------



## Rob Ray (Nov 9, 2021)

teuchter said:


> They disagree with (presumably) you and others about what exactly those rights should be. Maybe some of them disagree with some legislation too. Maybe some of them don't. That is not the same as being "opposed to trans rights".



Can you name an instance in which any of the major gender critical groups and advocates are calling for more (or even the same levels of) trans rights compared to now?


----------



## teuchter (Nov 9, 2021)

smokedout said:


> Opposing the use of the term genocide is very different, I said myself I didn't think it was helpful.  You compared calling for the elimination of transgenderism - which the authors of that document are quite frank about meaning the complete removal of any recognition of trans people in law, a worldwide ban on aspects of trans research and trans healthcare and the removal of social practices which support trans people - to calling for the elimination of racism.  Would you have compared someone calling for the elimination of homosexuality to someone calling for the elimination of racism?  Or the elimination of Islam?  It was a deeply unpleasant thing to say and shows that behind the pomposity and pious liberalism you're a pretty nasty piece of work who has brought nothing to the table in this debate..



This was the exchange



bimble said:


> sometimes, its just too crazy. KS is accused there (in the linked highly recommended extremely long piece) of 'genocide apologism', i mean, srsly.





belboid said:


> do you mean in the Grace Lavery piece? Thats the only one I can see makes any such reference.  But what else would you call a demand for the 'elimination of the practise of transgenderism'?





teuchter said:


> I guess an elimination of racism or sexism would count as genocide as well then.



Calling for the elimination of the practice of homosexuality, however unpleasant that might be, would not be equivalent with calling for genocide. Calling for the elimination of homosexuals would.

It was a point about the misuse of language. I'll leave you to make the worst possible assumptions about what I meant and why I made that point because it doesn't look like there's any point attempting to change that.


----------



## belboid (Nov 9, 2021)

teuchter said:


> This was the exchange
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Do you think there is a single person out there who believes you?


----------



## teuchter (Nov 9, 2021)

belboid said:


> Do you think there is a single person out there who believes you?


Yes.


----------



## Rob Ray (Nov 9, 2021)

teuchter 

Can you name an instance in which any of the major gender critical groups and advocates are calling for more (or even the same levels of) trans rights compared to now?


----------



## Knotted (Nov 9, 2021)

teuchter said:


> I don't think (3) is really "abstruse".
> 
> There are those who have spent years or decades fighting for people to be free of the expectations and restrictions associated with gender stereotypes. They want people to be able to grow up and choose to do the things that they want to do rather than things that are expectations of them on the basis of whether they are male or female.
> 
> ...



To give you an example. The gc rhetoric around the Kathleen Stock case is "forced out of her job for stating sex is real" and "forced out of her job for saying what 99.9% of people think". Regarding the "sex is real" side of it, I've never seen a trans person say anything different and indeed the sis/trans distinction is precisely a recognition of biological sex differences. The rhetoric surrounding the case is thus demagogic - trying to paint the other side as radical extremists threatening everything and everyone not just women and sex based rights. Of course it appeals to right wingers/culture warriors, it's designed to do that. The LGB alliance which Stock is a trustee of have openly allied with the conservative Heritage Foundation, so I suspect both parties to that see it as a mutually beneficial alliance where they can and will put aside their differences in order to tackle trans rights.


----------



## teuchter (Nov 9, 2021)

Rob Ray said:


> teuchter
> 
> Can you name an instance in which any of the major gender critical groups and advocates are calling for more (or even the same levels of) trans rights compared to now?


No. Why do you ask? I don't especially follow any such groups, nor do I necessarily agree with them, but seeing as trans rights are not their cause, why would you expect them to be?


----------



## belboid (Nov 9, 2021)

teuchter said:


> Yes.


You’re wrong


----------



## Rob Ray (Nov 9, 2021)

Because you say these groups aren't opposed to trans rights. In order for that to be true there would need to be some evidence that in a situation where trans people are seeing considerable pressure for a major rolling back of their existing rights that GC activists are against that process. If they aren't, and in fact are largely pro such actions and indeed behaving as activists towards that goal, then saying they aren't opposed to trans rights is not only meaningless, it's actively misleading. 

Given that, by your own admission, you don't actually have the first clue _what _they're saying, I do wonder what you're actually bringing to the table here when holding forth and accusing other people of mischaracterisation etc. How would you even know?


----------



## teuchter (Nov 9, 2021)

Rob Ray said:


> Because you say these groups aren't opposed to trans rights.


Where did I say that?


----------



## Rob Ray (Nov 9, 2021)

> They disagree with (presumably) you and others about what exactly those rights should be. Maybe some of them disagree with some legislation too. Maybe some of them don't. That is not the same as being "opposed to trans rights".



Here is your characterisation of the conversation, arguing that GC people are not saying things that are opposed to trans rights. Now you say you've not read what they're saying and don't know what they oppose. Why on earth are you on this thread?


----------



## smokedout (Nov 9, 2021)

teuchter said:


> Calling for the elimination of the practice of homosexuality, however unpleasant that might be, would not be equivalent with calling for genocide. Calling for the elimination of homosexuals would.
> 
> It was a point about the misuse of language. I'll leave you to make the worst possible assumptions about what I meant and why I made that point because it doesn't look like there's any point attempting to change that.


You are wrong on both counts.  The international definition of genocide is as follows:

(a) Killing members of the group; 
(b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group; 
(c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its
physical destruction in whole or in part; 
(d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group; 
(e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.

Each of the last four points could be inflicted on both trans and gay people without killing them.  In fact they all have been historically and the declaration under discussion comes close on points b,c and d.  The elimination of homosexuality or 'transgenderism' on these grounds could be genocidal were it not for the fact that genocide in law refers to national, ethnical, racial or religious groups only.

Perhaps you should learn what words means before complaining about misuse of language?


----------



## teuchter (Nov 9, 2021)

Knotted said:


> To give you an example. The gc rhetoric around the Kathleen Stock case is "forced out of her job for stating sex is real" and "forced out of her job for saying what 99.9% of people think". Regarding the "sex is real" side of it, I've never seen a trans person say anything different and indeed the sis/trans distinction is precisely a recognition of biological sex differences. The rhetoric surrounding the case is thus demagogic - trying to paint the other side as radical extremists threatening everything and everyone not just women and sex based rights. Of course it appeals to right wingers/culture warriors, it's designed to do that. The LGB alliance which Stock is a trustee of have openly allied with the conservative Heritage Foundation, so I suspect both parties to that see it as a mutually beneficial alliance where they can and will put aside their differences in order to tackle trans rights.


Maybe people have been misled about the Kathleen Stock thing thanks to rhetoric. I don't really know; I find it difficult to untangle everything, because when i read the pieces outlining the problems with her, I can see the point of some of it and yet they also contain stuff that seems like misrepresentation to me, and therefore I don't end up trusting them.

Either way though, whether or not people have been misled, I was explaining what I see as one reason why some people would be receptive to that rhetoric. That they may be receptive can not just be explained away by calling them transphobic, in my view.

That is based on my observations of people that I know well.


----------



## teuchter (Nov 9, 2021)

Rob Ray said:


> Here is your characterisation of the conversation, arguing that GC people are not saying things that are opposed to trans rights.


No, that's not what I'm saying there. And in that case I am talking about individuals rather than advocacy groups.


Rob Ray said:


> Now you say you've not read what they're saying and don't know what they oppose.


What I've said is that I don't especially follow GC advocacy groups, and don't necessarily agree with them. That is not the same as saying I have never read any of what they've said or have no idea of what they oppose.


----------



## teuchter (Nov 9, 2021)

smokedout said:


> You are wrong on both counts.  The international definition of genocide is as follows:
> 
> (a) Killing members of the group;
> (b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;
> ...



Have you taken that from the UN convention here?






						United Nations Office on Genocide Prevention and the Responsibility to Protect
					

Genocide Prevention and the Responsibility to Protect



					www.un.org
				




If you want to get pedantic about technical definitions, I could point out that the full wording is as follows:



> *Article II*
> 
> _In the present Convention, genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such: _
> 
> ...


 

Which actually limits it to "national, ethical, racial or religious" groups.

But that really doesn't matter, because the context of the "genocide apologist" comment was an article for general readership, not a technical or legal document, which means it's quite appropriate to take "genocide" to be intended to communicate the meaning that you'll consistently find in most dictionaries, which is the murder of an entire group of people.

The word was used in that article for shock value. It's up to the writer's judgement whether that's effective. Maybe it is for some readers. For other readers it won't be.


----------



## smokedout (Nov 9, 2021)

Pertinent thread to this debate just posted on twitter


----------



## belboid (Nov 9, 2021)

The lengths done turds will go to to pretend their bigotry is anything other than bigotry…


----------



## hitmouse (Nov 9, 2021)

teuchter said:


> Have you taken that from the UN convention here?
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Did you even read the article?


I think that where someone explicitly and at length refers to the legal document they're talking about, they're probably trying to communicate the meaning used in that legal document, which is why they're citing and discussing it.


----------



## teuchter (Nov 9, 2021)

hitmouse said:


> Did you even read the article?
> View attachment 296096
> View attachment 296097
> I think that where someone explicitly and at length refers to the legal document they're talking about, they're probably trying to communicate the meaning used in that legal document, which is why they're citing and discussing it.



Fair enough, I missed that part, instead finding the bit where Kathleen Stock is described as a "genocide apologist" in the conclusion to the article.

So, it was wrong of me to say that the writer used it with the intention of it being understood in terms of its conventional dictionary definition.


----------



## Cid (Nov 9, 2021)

I think it's worth reposting the Sarah Ahmed article hitmouse linked to earlier, since it pretty comprehensively deals with many of the points that keep coming up.









						Gender Critical = Gender Conservative
					

Content Warning: The following post includes a discussion of transphobia and transmisogyny. How has gender become a map of a moment? Why do so many movements present themselves as against gender? I…




					feministkilljoys.com
				




I do wonder why people (well, teuchter at the moment) think that 'I've talked to a couple of people, don't really know anything about the arguments, but y'know, have this kind of vibe' is a sound basis for charging into a thread about the rights of an extremely marginalised group and arguing the toss about the finer points of their eradication. 

Anyway, shouldn't really be back, least of all on this thread. I shall fuck back off into my void.


----------



## NoXion (Nov 12, 2021)

The BBC has given a platform to a vicious transphobe, and half-arsedly amended the article afterwards (while leaving intact a provable lie). The following video is a decent summary, less than 20 mins:



Fucking TERF island strikes again.


----------



## 8ball (Nov 12, 2021)

NoXion said:


> The BBC has given a platform to a vicious transphobe, and half-arsedly amended the article afterwards (while leaving intact a provable lie). The following video is a decent summary, less than 20 mins:
> 
> 
> 
> Fucking TERF island strikes again.




Didn't we already discuss this one?


----------



## NoXion (Nov 12, 2021)

8ball said:


> Didn't we already discuss this one?



If that's true, then I apologise. I haven't been religiously following this thread. But it looks like the BBC has yet to correct their error.


----------



## 8ball (Nov 12, 2021)

NoXion said:


> If that's true, then I apologise. I haven't been religiously following this thread. But it looks like the BBC has yet to correct their error.



No prob - there is some useful context there that fills in some of the stuff mauvais was talking about earlier in the thread, and which was veiled sufficiently in the amended article for me to miss some important bits of the awful tone (not that it was just a matter of tone).


----------



## SpookyFrank (Nov 12, 2021)

belboid said:


> The lengths done turds will go to to pretend their bigotry is anything other than bigotry…



Not really such great lengths tbh. They mostly just say, 'I'm not a bigot' while going around being bigoted and everyone somehow takes their word for it.


----------



## Boxxer (Jul 26, 2022)

The word "transphobe" is a problem in itself. it is used to shut down conversations. Not everyone agrees on issues and calling people transphobes for simply speaking their mind causes divisions. It just adds to the growing divides


----------



## belboid (Jul 26, 2022)

Insightful first comment.  

Allow me to be the first to say ‘fuck off’


----------



## Boxxer (Jul 26, 2022)

belboid said:


> Insightful first comment.
> 
> Allow me to be the first to say ‘fuck off’


You are free to say whatever you want but if you are angry and hiding on a internet forum and using language like that. It is you who has a problem


----------



## Shippou-Sensei (Jul 26, 2022)

Boxxer said:


> The word "transphobe" is a problem in itself. it is used to shut down conversations. Not everyone agrees on issues and calling people transphobes for simply speaking their mind causes divisions. It just adds to the growing divides


I know right... I hate it when call me a racist pedophile cannibal.  It just adds to the divide.


----------



## BristolEcho (Jul 26, 2022)

Boxxer said:


> The word "transphobe" is a problem in itself. it is used to shut down conversations. Not everyone agrees on issues and calling people transphobes for simply speaking their mind causes divisions. It just adds to the growing divides


If someone's saying something transphobic then they deserve to be challenged and called out on it. Regardless of if they are speaking their mind or not.


----------



## Athos (Jul 26, 2022)

Boxxer said:


> The word "transphobe" is a problem in itself. it is used to shut down conversations. Not everyone agrees on issues and calling people transphobes for simply speaking their mind causes divisions. It just adds to the growing divides


There's nothing wrong with the word 'transphobe' _per se_, as long as it's used to describe people who are transphobes, of which they're are many.  The issue is when it's used in bad faith to try to silence people who aren't transphobes.


----------



## liquidindian (Jul 26, 2022)

Boxxer said:


> causes divisions


I've learned in the last year or so just how much this trope is relied on to hide bullshit opinions. Saying that you prefer ketchup over mustard is divisive. Saying that the world is round is divisive. Everything is divisive. People just don't like finding out they're suddenly on one side of a divide with some pretty unsavoury people, can we not have that particular divide please?


----------



## Boxxer (Jul 26, 2022)

BristolEcho said:


> If someone's saying something transphobic then they deserve to be challenged and called out on it. Regardless of if they are speaking their mind or not.


i was talking about the word itself. Not everyone can contain and control their emotions. Using belboid as an example. They want shutdown conversations. Which is like using the word "transphobe" and instead of talking and being rational


----------



## Monkeygrinder's Organ (Jul 26, 2022)

Just asking questions.


----------



## Shippou-Sensei (Jul 26, 2022)

Boxxer said:


> i was talking about the word itself. Not everyone can contain and control their emotions. Using belboid as an example. They want shutdown conversations. Which is like using the word "transphobe" and instead of talking and being rational


Piss off

And take your bullshit with you.
It's a wankers tactic to accuse the people you disagree with of being emotional and not rational.
It's a giant pile of poo.


----------



## Shechemite (Jul 26, 2022)

Oh gawd


----------



## Mr.Bishie (Jul 26, 2022)

Boxxer said:


> i was talking about the word itself. Not everyone can contain and control their emotions. Using belboid as an example. They want shutdown conversations. Which is like using the word "transphobe" and instead of talking and being rational


Fuck off cunt.


----------



## Athos (Jul 26, 2022)

Boxxer said:


> i was talking about the word itself. Not everyone can contain and control their emotions. Using belboid as an example. They want shutdown conversations. Which is like using the word "transphobe" and instead of talking and being rational


That's true to extent. But, even as someone who believes in trans rights and women's (hard won) rights to single sex (not gender) spaces, I recognise that some straight-up bigots co-opt women's rights (which they don't support in any other context) as cover for transhobia.


----------



## Boxxer (Jul 26, 2022)

Why you guys so upset. You are the ones choosing to be bigots. Your entire beliefs are for all to read


----------



## belboid (Jul 26, 2022)

Boxxer said:


> i was talking about the word itself. Not everyone can contain and control their emotions. Using belboid as an example. They want shutdown conversations. Which is like using the word "transphobe" and instead of talking and being rational


Not everyone can write sentences according to this post.


----------



## Mr.Bishie (Jul 26, 2022)

Boxxer said:


> Why you guys so upset. You are the ones choosing to be bigots. Your entire beliefs are for all to read


Fuck off.


----------



## JimW (Jul 26, 2022)

Must be a right bore-fest round yours if everything has to be described at length in simple English rather than use the term that's emerged to describe the existing phenomenon.


----------



## Shippou-Sensei (Jul 26, 2022)

Boxxer said:


> Why you guys so upset. You are the ones choosing to be bigots. Your entire beliefs are for all to read


Your actual the ones who are racist against white people!!!11!!one!


----------



## kittyP (Jul 26, 2022)

Boxxer said:


> Why you guys so upset. You are the ones choosing to be bigots. Your entire beliefs are for all to read


The reason people are upset is that you're a "new poster"  turning up, wading in on a long running, upsetting thread/subject with your 2 pence worth with no regard to the history of the subject and its effects on this site.

Do you regularly walk in to pubs and cafes and just tell your opinions to random strangers that are sitting having other conversations?


----------



## Yossarian (Jul 26, 2022)

Boxxer said:


> Why you guys so upset. You are the ones choosing to be bigots. Your entire beliefs are for all to read



Don't you have a boy wizard to write about?


----------



## Boxxer (Jul 26, 2022)

I just arrived and just being me. I saw this topic and added my views to it. But i am losing interest now. If you want to talk about it. Please be less insulting i might reply again at some point


----------



## Mr.Bishie (Jul 26, 2022)

Yossarian said:


> Don't you have a boy wizard to write about?


Far too thick for JK. 

I’m out.


----------



## Shippou-Sensei (Jul 26, 2022)

Boxxer said:


> Please be less insulting i might reply again at some point


Cock arse balls to that.


----------



## andysays (Jul 26, 2022)

Boxxer said:


> I just arrived and just being me. I saw this topic and added my views to it. But i am losing interest now. If you want to talk about it. Please be less insulting i might reply again at some point



You just arrived, and you just happened to see this thread, which hadn't been posted on since November last year, so you just thought you'd add your "views" to it.

And you're just being you...


----------



## Athos (Jul 26, 2022)

Boxxer said:


> ... If you want to talk about it...


As a community, we've pretty much reached a consensus that discussing it in the open fora isn't worth the grief.


----------



## teuchter (Jul 26, 2022)

Once again, urban75 showing its spectacularly bountiful willingness to engage with comments obviously designed only to get an angry reaction.


----------



## JimW (Jul 26, 2022)

teuchter said:


> Once again, urban75 showing its spectacularly bountiful willingness to engage with comments obviously designed only to get an angry reaction.


Well, you'd have a much less successful thread history if we didn't.


----------



## Orang Utan (Jul 26, 2022)

Athos said:


> As a community, we've pretty much reached a consensus that discussing it in the open fora isn't worth the grief.


i wish this wasn't so


----------



## FabricLiveBaby! (Jul 26, 2022)

"Isn't worth the grief"

Agree with that.


----------



## FabricLiveBaby! (Jul 26, 2022)

(yes, we are all still here..  tho I, and mostly others, can't be bothered to post _anywhere_ on the boards as often)


----------



## Athos (Jul 26, 2022)

Orang Utan said:


> i wish this wasn't so


Me too.  Because it's meant that we've abandoned respectful disagreement between people who are, by and large, politically sound. And, insofar as there's any public discourse, that void has been largely filled by extremists.  But, if it was causing pain to (and the loss of) established members of this community - on all 'sides' of the debate - maybe it's for the best.   Especially as, to be honest, we'd reached a position of going round in circles, and taking past one another.


----------



## Ax^ (Jul 26, 2022)

.


----------



## FabricLiveBaby! (Jul 26, 2022)

Ax^ said:


> hmm was not sure where to put this when i saw it this might work


Fuck off.


----------



## A380 (Jul 26, 2022)

Boxxer said:


> I just arrived ...


Doubt that.


----------



## liquidindian (Jul 26, 2022)

Ax^ said:


> hmm was not sure where to put this when i saw it this might work











						Unhinged ‘Transvestigators’ Think They’re the Only Cis People Left
					

Once you buy into their hateful conspiracy theory, you’ll turn against anyone




					melmagazine.com


----------



## Ax^ (Jul 26, 2022)

FabricLiveBaby! said:


> Fuck off.



hmm ok i take it down

thought it was more funny that getting a fuck off


*wanders away from subject


----------



## FabricLiveBaby! (Jul 26, 2022)

Ax^ said:


> thought it was more funny that getting a fuck off


 Course ya did 🙄😴


----------



## bimble (Jul 26, 2022)

oh good, is it post the most insane nasty old shit you've ever seen on a barrel-scraping trash website and have been saving on your desktop for just such an occasion time?

This is better check these out.








						Newly discovered deep sea species – in pictures
					

Exploration of the central Pacific Ocean’s Clarion-Clipperton Zone, a 5,000-metre abyssal plain that extends between Hawaii and Mexico, has brought to light megafauna previously unknown to science




					www.theguardian.com


----------



## 8ball (Jul 26, 2022)

liquidindian said:


> Unhinged ‘Transvestigators’ Think They’re the Only Cis People Left
> 
> 
> Once you buy into their hateful conspiracy theory, you’ll turn against anyone
> ...



Since just about everyone turns out to have been trans forever, you’d think they’d chill a bit.


----------



## Ax^ (Jul 26, 2022)

FabricLiveBaby! said:


> Course ya did 🙄😴



I pulled it from subreddit 'I never thought leopards would eat MY face"
if i missed some of it context my bad, should not of wander into the thread without reading more of it

take from that what you will


----------



## 8ball (Jul 26, 2022)

bimble said:


> oh good, is it post the most insane nasty old shit you've ever seen on a barrel-scraping trash website and have been saving on your desktop for just such an occasion time?
> 
> This is better check these out.
> 
> ...



Gummy squirrel.


----------



## krtek a houby (Jul 26, 2022)

Boxxer said:


> Why you guys so upset. You are the ones choosing to be bigots. Your entire beliefs are for all to read



Are you a Cranphobe as well?

Top 50 question.


----------



## xenon (Jul 26, 2022)

bimble said:


> oh good, is it post the most insane nasty old shit you've ever seen on a barrel-scraping trash website and have been saving on your desktop for just such an occasion time?
> 
> This is better check these out.
> 
> ...




I love the words abyssal and megafauna.


----------



## 8ball (Jul 26, 2022)

krtek a houby said:


> Are you a Cranphobe as well?



Lost me there.


----------



## krtek a houby (Jul 26, 2022)

8ball said:


> Lost me there.


References an ex poster who had unreasonable expectations on urban's tolerance for a well known Limerick band


----------



## 8ball (Jul 26, 2022)

krtek a houby said:


> References an ex poster who had unreasonable expectations on urban's tolerance for a well known Limerick band



Gotcha.  That passed about 30,000 feet over my head.


----------

